Legal Issues

‘We Don’t Dial 911’—Legal Problems Caused by Bumper Stickers and Signs

Texas Law Shield Logo

Did you know that something as simple as a bumper sticker could make your day in court a nightmare? In this 1:29-minute video, former prosecutor and Texas Law Shield Firearms Program Attorney Emily Taylor explains why you should be cautious of the stickers you place on your car and the signs you post on your fence.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (135)

  1. I’ve seen a few folks posting about the inadmissibility of a bumper sticker and I wanted to provide an example where it has been admitted.

    US v. Stone, 852 F.Supp.2d 820 (E.D. Mich. 2012)…bumper stickers were held to be admissible. It was being used to show conspiratorial intent, but still admissible under the same rules of evidence that would be applied in most criminal proceedings.

    1. @Tyler

      A conspiracy happens over a period of time. So the ACT of distributing a bumper sticker with a specific message while engaged in a conspiracy can be evidence of conspiratorial intent — as was held to be in the Stone case you cited.

      The bumper sticker in Stone was not admissible as evidence of the defendant’s “state of mind” under the hearsay exception, it was direct evidence of the conspiracy itself. That specific conspiracy was to violate the NFA by owning and using machine guns without paying the applicable tax.

      The bumper sticker at issue said “When the going gets tough I get a machine gun” — so the bumper sticker was exactly linked to the exact conspiracy. The bumper sticker was not on the defendants’ vehicle, it was part of a collection of literature the defendants had been distributing to promote their conspiracy to violate the NFA — so the bumper sticker was in fact THEIR statement.

      But in a self-defense shooting case a bumper sticker is not probative of a defendant’s “state of mind” (which is only relevant in a 1st degree murder case anyway), nor is the bumper sticker a statement by the defendant himself, nor is it a statement by the defendant at the time of the shooting. So, IN NO WAY does US v. Stone or any other case I have seen suggest that a bumper sticker could be legitimately introduced as evidence of “state of mind” in a self-defense shooting case.

      And, no, this does not go to the “weight” of evidence given to the bumper sticker, it goes to whether the bumper sticker may be admitted into evidence at all. If a bumper sticker were so admitted, that would be grounds for reversal of any conviction.

      The Daubert rule is applicable because criminal charges in a self-defense shooting case are about behavior, not speech. Even if the hearsay hurdle could be overcome somehow, the only way a bumper sticker could be presented as relevant to the defendant’s behavior would be if there were a scientifically proven link between individuals’ speech on bumper stickers and those individuals’ behavior. The only way to present such a link is through expert opinion testimony — hence, the Daubert rule. Due process requires that all evidence be factual, not just supposition — this is the impact of Daubert beyond mere opinion testimony.

  2. “Just because you have a Right to do, does not always mean it is the Right thing to do”.

  3. This is the way I ultimately look at it. I live in Texas. I cannot see a Grand Jury even indicting a man defending his family legitamately. REGARDLESS OF A BUMPER STICKER. No different than having a loades pistol if carrying concealed. Why? You must be wanting to kill someone. Furthermore, if I was subsequently tried, and found guilty of murder, I would rather do time away from my family then be burying them. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I have a bumper sticker on my truck that says “Think Twice, Cause I Won’t”. And I mean it, and I’m damn serious about it. I would never think twice about shooting any man, woman, or even child that was attempting deadly force towards me or my family. If you would hesitate because of fear of prosecution, then you do not even need to own a firearm for protection.

    When the day comes that more men like me will use common sense when it comes to using deadly force and mean what they say, crime will go down.

    1. Just because you have a carry conceal, does not mean you looking to kill someone, it”s there for your protection, so that you life will not be taken by some lowlife scummer.. Common sense is better you than me!

    2. Would you think twice about shooting any man, woman, or child who was not attempting deadly force towards you or your family?

      And if you haven’t thought twice, how would you know whether the person you were about to kill was attempting deadly force or not?

    3. @Jonathan

      With all due respect your post is stupid, ignorant and hateful.

      A person under attack has no duty to “know” the intent of the attacker as you claim. By attacking someone an attacker essentially abandons any legal or moral rights the attacker might have in contrast to the victim’s basic human right of self-defense. All a victim of attack is morally or legally obligated to “know” is whether he is being attacked, and whether that attack creates fear of bodily harm. It has nothing to do with the attacker’s intent, and it certainly has nothing to do with the attacker “attempting deadly force,” as you wrongly claim.

      Also, there is no legal or moral obligation for a victim of attack to “think twice,” and your suggestion does not even make common sense. By the time a victim has ascertained that he is under attack and has developed a fear of bodily harm, it is far too late to “think twice.” People who do “think twice” have a name — “decedent,” because failure to act decisively in self-defense when under attack is often fatal.

      You are an effing idiot. Where do you get this kind of stupidity — from Al Sharpton or from Barack Obama, or from some other bigoted hater who thinks people should just let attackers kill them?

  4. So when did the first amendment become a weapon to be used by a prosecuting attorney? I’d like to know how this country has come to this state of “political correctness” that a warning to a criminal of the hazard they PUT THEMSELVES IN can be used to put a person defending themselves in prison.

    1. “So when did the first amendment become a weapon…”

      What is the fifth amendment and what does it signify?
      Or more simply, under Miranda, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law”.
      Notable is, previous speech also may be used against you in a court of law.

      An example is, placing a sign on my property saying “Trespassers will be shot on sight”, then shooting a burglar who then staggers outside of my home.
      Fortunate for me, my preferred caliber would leave me ample defense against an ambitious D.A., as my defense would be, “Of *course* he was inside of the house, his spleen is on my wall”.
      Whereas, if I *didn’t* have that sign, I’d have less against me and I’d save lawyer money.

    2. @Wzrd1

      I am ready to be educated.

      Please tell me the rule of evidence under which you contend a sign or bumper sticker can be admitted into evidence as “previous speech.”

      If a sign or bumper sticker IS a statement by the defendant (it isn’t but let’s just ignore that reality for the sake of discussion), then it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the matter asserted — in your example, that the defendant would be willing to shoot a trespasser. That makes the sign “hearsay,” which can only be admitted under a hearsay exception. My view is that no such exception applies.

      There is a hearsay exception for an “admission against interest” — but that exception does not apply. The bumper sticker or sign is not an “admission” because it is not a statement about the particular incident at trial (“I shot that guy”). Nor is the bumper sticker or sign a statement “against interest” because a statement that the declarant would do something legal is not an “admission” that the declarant would do something illegal. The freedom haters and the criminals they protect hate this truth, but shooting a trespasser is legal in all common-law jurisdictions — meaning everywhere in the US but Louisiana — under the common-law Castle Doctrine, even if that doctrine has not been formalized in a statute.

      There also is a hearsay exception for “state of mind” evidence expressed AT THE TIME of the alleged crime. That exception does not apply because the supposed statement — which, again, is not even a statement by the defendant — was not made AT THE TIME of the incident.

      There may be other possible hearsay exceptions I have not considered, or you may think you know this area of law better than I do. So, as I said, I am ready to be educated.

    3. This is good practical advice. The first goal is to never have to have your “day in court”, because the prosecutor elects not to move forward with charges. I’m not sure if you’re an attorney (I am although civil not criminal), but I would disagree with your application of the state of mind exception. You’re implying that the speech only occurs at the time a sign is placed. The speech being expressed by placing a sign as described is ongoing and continuous speech. I’ve seen Facebook post used for this same purpose successfully b/c the comments remained up on their wall after the time they were made. Don’t get me wrong, there is certainly room to argue as you have, but do you really even want to have to go through an appellate process, and more importantly pay for an attorney through that process? The other issue where the sign could more easily be used by the prosecutor, is a scenario where the defendant elects to testify. As soon as he asks the question about whether they “wanted to kill” them or “were looking to kill a trespasser” and the answer is “No”, then it immediately becomes admissible under a far more liberal standard of being used to impeach those statements. The biggest take aways are that, Yes, you absolutely have the right to display any signage like that, but it may come with some negative consequences, so you may not want to. I think the biggest reason would be that you’re alerting criminal minded folks that you likely have firearms in your home, which is a prized possession of any would be thief. It’s the same reason you shouldn’t put Sig or Smith&Wesson signs on your car. You’re begging to have your car broken into.

    4. @Tyler

      One difference between a bumper sticker and a Facebook post is that the declarant is the actual author of the FB post but not of the bumper sticker. So, an argument could be made that, having initially posted the statement and having “decided” not to remove it when possible, the FB post is the declarant’s continuing statement.

      That argument is how the FB post could be squeezed into the state of mind hearsay exception. But if I were reviewing the case on appeal, I would vote to overturn a conviction obtained that way, as the argument is much too much of a stretch.

      The basic concept of the “state of mind” exception is similar to the “present sense impression” and “excited utterance” exceptions. These exceptions were created because people who say things AT THE TIME of a notable event tend to mean THEN pretty much what they say THEN.

      Those hearsay exceptions are for situations when an out-of-court statement is more reliable than the typical unreliable out-of-court statement. But that would not be true for a FB post that simply languished on someone’s page — nothing makes that out-of-court statement any more reliable on the issue of what the defendant was or was not thinking AT THE TIME than any other out-of-court statement.

      Also, that argument renders the words “at the time” meaningless in the applicable rule of evidence, which is a clearly impermissible statutory construction.

      The questions you propose to a defendant who shot a trespasser are not permissible questions, even if the defendant does testify, because they are argumentative not factual. And, even if the hearsay problem could be overcome, the relevance barrier is probably even greater.

      For a bumper sticker to be admissible from a relevance perspective, the prosecutor would have to establish through opinion evidence that there is a connection between what people do and what statements are on their bumper stickers. Under the Daubert Rule, however, that expert testimony cannot be given because there is no peer-reviewed study showing any such behavioral connection.

      My background includes the law-of-evidence in academia, and appellate practice including civil and criminal.

    5. Where such things can be brought to the court is that such signage and stickers speak to the state of mind of the accused.
      Regardless of the outcome, it’s still a daunting expense to gamble upon, attorneys are not inexpensive to retain and billable hours accrue rapidly.

      @PeteDub, which state are you licensed/certified in? Some states are more permissive than others when it comes to evidence, as I’m sure you’re aware.
      We also have to admit, some prosecutors will charge people at the drop of a hat, just to prove that they’re “tough on crime”, wasting tax dollars on weak cases of no merit.

  5. This was a slick professionaly prepared info-mercial,best way to catch male audiene eye, place a an attractive long haired blonde in front of him, and the message was delivered while the advertizement for her firm was prominently displayed.
    Odd that a noted legal firm is admitting that sometimes stickers posters and words will prejudice a jury, but our own legal experts deny it can happen.
    Tere is a larger.jury and courtroom than the one cops arrested you to face, the Court of Punlic Opinion anf trisl by the press.
    Now you may not individually prejudiced public or formal juries but they all have found numerous examples of intimidating, bellicose and in general insensitive boorish behavior by
    Prior media postimgs and even personal contact with braggatt examples of thr gun culture;
    And those perrs, thanks to the that past, may
    damn well end up as your jurors.
    Show us a lawyer who without equivocation dares to say they can predict 100% of their jurors verdicts.
    Furthermore when that day of 100% comes why need a jury or a lawyer in criminal cases, just leypolice arrest and lock up whomever thry want.

    1. @Hide Behind

      The advertisement for that law firm can be summarized as follows” “We don’t know $&*^ about the law.”

      There is NO rule of evidence that would allow a bumper sticker to be admitted into evidence. If these clowns have actually tried cases where that has happened, then they are not doing their jobs as lawyers. Their ad is telling the world they are ass-hat idiots.

      All that aside, though, it is a bad idea to post these signs because it violates a classic rule of self-defense — don’t give potential attackers information they might be able to use against you. If thugs are in the process of breaking into your house or vehicle, no sign is going to make them change their minds. In fact, the sign makes you a target, precisely because guns are transportable, valuable and easily fenced commodities for thieves. Might as well have a sign that says “Get your guns here.” NOBODY and NO PLACE is 100% immune.

  6. Once the 1st Amendment is subdued you are backed into a corner of relying on the 2nd. If you can’t withstand the scrutiny of the oppreSSors on “speech” you most likely will not give your very life on the other.
    Just furl those flags from the ’76 Revolution that said, “Don’t Tread on Me” or “An Appeal to Heaven”. Welcome to the USSA. Clever excuses notwithstanding your own curtailment of your own speech. Fear facilitates Tyranny.

  7. This is an absurd article . One has no bearing on the other, I’m a retired Officer myself and the idea that a defense attorney would even try do as the above counsel suggests is ludicrus. I have signs on my property and on my car. If someone would think that they are a joke,then they are not reading the signage properly. I have had the misfortune to have to shoot someone in the line of duty ,and it is not an easy thing to as most people would tell you ,they would have no problem with it. No I do not believe that a jury would convict you for just signage on your vehicle or property, If you had to use deadly force as a last resort!

    1. @ David Stephenson

      As the dad of a cop who has had to take a life in the line of duty, I appreciate what you have to deal with as a result of your shooting.

      But the reality is that prosecutors try to break the rules in order to convict innocent people all the time. Prosecutors are elected officials, who are politicians guided by politics rather than by law.

      The difference is that politics is the art of appealing to popularity by offending the fewest people while law is the science of getting the right answer based on the facts no matter how many people get upset. They usually lead to very different answers on any particular issue. For example, the law does not allow an out-of-court statement like a bumper sticker or a sign to be admitted into evidence on any relevant issue in a shooting trial, but the politics of a particular area or a particular prosecutor or judge may favor conviction of a gun owner over following the law.

      Our society simply does not respect law anymore, and as a result just about every decision made in court is based on politics rather than law (with rare exceptions that can happen in federal courts where judges are appointed rather than elected). There are many reasons our society does not respect law anymore, but among them are the fact that we have too many laws because politics controls what laws are passed and people “want” more laws to prove that government is actually “doing something.”

  8. Teddy Roosevelt had the right of it. Walk softly but carry a big stick. Even the Bible tells us ” If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Rom 12:18 NIV) No sense going around antagonizing people.

  9. Being too ignprant to be able to beag about how dumb I am, unless my ears decieved me I do believe the Blondie was advising us about not prejudicing a jury and not what is or is not actusl evidence.
    If, heaven forbid, any of us gun saints are called to appear befote a Grand Or formal criminal jury, what are you going to wear?
    DILDO shaved head under a cammy boonie hat wearing face paint and black shades with our dihital or woodland cammo and combat boots, with Molon Labe on one shoulder and a Gadsen Flag on the othrr may be alright below Mason Dixon Line clear to Trxas Atkansas border but in most any other State or municipal court will most assuredly not be good deal.
    Evrr clean up the house where shot gun kills a man, it is easier ti remove walls cupnoarfs and rugs than trying to use soap and water. OH AND YES THE STENCH REMAINS OF S**T ,PISS BILE BLOOD AND GORE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
    You might want to think of that, and if you can give heed , before you fire.

    1. OMG Hide Behind what are you thinking over there? How can a straightforward advice video about not putting crazy bumper stickers on your car get twisted up into what you just posted? This is why I try to stay out of the political arguments here and mainly focus on the technical articles, although they seem to eventually veer off course as well.

      I’m not saying I’ve been a choir boy on the blogs, but you just posted another award winner that I couldn’t help but comment on 🙂

      As far as your comment about cleaning up the house goes, since the policemen don’t have to clean the house, are you one of those guys in the bio-hazard suits who cleans up after they do their job?

    2. I know I said “just posted”, and your posting date above says 2 days ago, but it JUST NOW appeared in my email inbox.

  10. LOL you think posting on The Shooters Log is not a paper trail. What you post here will do you more damage then an NRA sticker on your car.

  11. Thus, the reason you wont find ANY firearms related stickers around my home, and car. As much as I DESPISE Hillary, she is RIGHT!! You don’t write or put anything on paper, you have NO paper trail.
    We might as well learn from the best CRIMINAL around!

  12. Yeah don’t do it. People slapping that stuff up everywhere are what Colion Noir calls the “I Wish A MF’er Would” type. Don’t be one of those, don’t advertise, and definitely don’t volunteer to make life harder for yourself should you ever need to defend employed force as being “reasonable”.

  13. I agree, it is better not to invite trouble. I appricate the attorney giving us her point of view and it makes sense. I’ll leave the bumper stickers for the next fellow and the cute little t-shirts for the range only or when I am not carrying my weapon.

    1. Agreed the only sign I’ve got says theres a fine for Feeding the bears, Bears are Dangerous, take that as you wil,,,

  14. IMO you people spend way too much time blabbing about something that statistically has a >99% chance of not happening: a defensive shooting or a burglary. Own guns, ccw, and put any sticker you want on your vehicle. Live free.

  15. I agree with ugly blonde lawyer, Gramps always said : Stay sway from lawyers and cops until you have no choice but to hire one; and I strongly believe that in investigations of home and buisness shpotings stickers, speech, signs and even body tattoos should be part of overall study.
    I also believe “When you are alive or dead it is your strength of character that decides in others minds who and what you are.
    There are legal and then there are “Legally Justified Killngs” and in both the question thAt needs to be decided if Justice was truly served; was the killing necessary and could it of been avoided.
    Free Speech is great but all it means is that inrelligent, fools, braggsrts and idiots have same opportunity tp speak, and some feel the need to scream loudrr than others in ordrr to draw.attention to themselves or the message; content of dpeevh has weight.
    Ever prrsonally known what trigger time is; What about in others, can it be a craving or even of no more tham a way to gain stature amomg your or their peers?
    Shoot first and let god sott em out is great fun fighting civilians ehen you are backed by most high-tech force in world, but other tjan our police thst share military occupier rights to shoot first, the nevessity of the killing at a buisness or home does matter.
    For although the indivifual has no cottrol over police/military of political powers use of force, the way we look upon the needless taking of life reflects back unto the charactrr of nation; and as to how its powers treat its peoples.

    1. Why did you have to refer to her looks? I can forgive your atrocious typing and grammatical mistakes, but commentin on someone’s looks isn’t necessary.

    2. She’s actually not all that bad, and I don’t even like blondes. I like brunettes. Maybe Hide Behind is a rich guy who can afford the finest women, but damn this lawyer lady is pretty cute in my opinion.

  16. The signs and bumper stickers are, IMO, bragging.
    Literally a dare to come get my free guns.

    “Let it be a surprise. Sun Tzu would approve.”

  17. Why give the criminal element (including police and liberals) any hint that you may have a firearm in your car/truck or in your home? I’m a Lifetime NRA member but I don’t put their stickers on my personal property or my home. I also have a CCW, again…it’s no ones business to even suspect I carry or store weapons anywhere. Those cute little signs and stickers are a bad ideal.

    1. My husband was in my pickup returning from a fishing trip in Canada. Crossing into New York at the border he was given a huge amount of bs because I have a window sticker that advertised he finally told the agent “this is my wife’s truck,I don’t have a firearm, and I am also not a cowgirl (which is the other window sticker”cowgirl up”) he was finally let go after a search of the vehicle.

  18. anyone that comes in my house i will just make sure to give them a clean shot between the eyes then their is no worry about opposing testimony in court!

  19. In an upside down world where the ny times, or equivalent, can publish the addresses of gun permit holders in NY; thus – pointing the way for someone to rob your stash of firearms when you’re NOT home – I think advertising on my home to steal my hubs is a bad idea with a window sticker.

  20. it may help if we think of bumper stickers as just one piece to the puzzle. signs in your yard, stickers on your windows, a highly active web presence on right-leaning blogs and any other notifications you present to the public could all be used as a comprehensive picture of your premeditation. i am not a lawyer but am concerned about personal defense and therefore starting to think like one thanks to authors/teachers like Massad Ayoob and Alan Korwin. consider the whole picture, not just a sticker, and you’ll soon see your way to going ninja as another commentor suggests.

    1. @Captain Tom

      Your comment is wrong, and so are the other comments suggesting that a bumper sticker could be used in court to prove “premeditation” or “state of mind” in a self-defense shooting situation.

      There is no rule of evidence that would allow a bumper sticker to be entered into evidence on the issue of “premeditation” or “state of mind” or any other legally relevant fact.

      The ONLY admissible “state of mind” evidence would be a statement by the defendant, AT THE TIME of the shooting. A bumper sticker is not a statement by the defendant, it is a statement by whoever authored the bumper sticker, or the person who is quoted (such as King Leonidis on the “Molon Labe” bumper sticker). Also, a bumper sticker is not a statement made AT THE TIME of the shooting. A bumper sticker does not meet either of the required conditions for being admitted as evidence on a defendant’s “state of mind.”

      “Premeditation” is a plan to kill a specific person. Premeditation turns “plain old” murder into first degree murder worthy of the death sentence. There is no “puzzle” to premeditation — the defendant either planned IN ADVANCE to kill the decedent, or the defendant did not. Unless a self-defense shooter actually knew the attacker who was shot, “premeditation” would be impossible to allege, must less prove.

      Furthermore, as an out-of-court statement, a bumper sticker is inadmissible hearsay unless it can be proven that (a) the defendant actually is the AUTHOR of the bumper sticker or the defendant affirmatively adopted the statement as his own, AND (b) the bumper sticker fits within a very narrow hearsay exception. I defy anyone to suggest a hearsay exception that applies.

      A bumper sticker that merely suggests a willingness to engage in self defense or support of a constitutional right clearly does not in any way suggest intent to kill a specific person, or anyone in general. To the contrary, such a bumper sticker proves that the defendant is aware of the palpable danger to every American of becoming one of the 20,000+ Americans senselessly murdered every year because they ARE NOT willing and prepared to exercise their basic human right to defend themselves. That awareness tends to negate any suggestion that a shooting was anything BUT self-defense.

      Again, I am sick and tired of people spouting BS on issues they know nothing about — and that includes most lawyers who talk out of their rear ends on issues like this. Only a handful of lawyers are even remotely competent to handle issues like this in court, and I ask you to take notice that not one competent trial lawyer has said anything, ever, to suggest that a bumper sticker could be used in a court of law as evidence on the issue of “premeditation” or “state of mind.”

      As an expert on the law-of-evidence, beginning in the 1980s, I guarantee you that the law does NOT allow that kind of idiocy. As to whether individual prosecutors respect the law, or whether individual defense lawyers know the law and have the courage and credibility to insist that the law be followed, or as to whether individual judges actually follow the law, that is a different matter — that’s politics, not law.

      You are correct, however, that the POLICE have a duty to investigate thoroughly — and that includes making whatever BS assumptions they might about bumper stickers, etc. But, like about 99% of Americans (including too many lawyers and judges), you are confusing investigation with evidence.

      Investigation may very well cause some idiot cop to pull the ASSUMPTION out of his rear end that a guy with a “We don’t call 911,” “This car insured by Smith & Wessson” “Molon Labe” or similar bumper sticker is more likely to have a trigger finger in a self-defense situation than someone who does not. But that ASSUMPTION has nothing to do with what actually can be admitted as evidence in a court of law to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that a crime was committed. Inference and proof are VERY different things.

    2. All the above is legally correct (I say as an attorney, although I claim no particular expertise in rules of evidence).

      All of it ALSO applies equally to such actions as carrying around your lawful pistol with a round in the chamber. We all know we’d be fools to carry the gun any other way.

      Yet anyone who watched the Zimmerman trial saw the prosecutors reference again, and again, and again that George Zimmerman had a round already chambered in his pistol as an indication of his mens rea of malice (required in Florida for the second degree murder charge they brought against him). At no time were they prevented form doing so.

      It’s all very well to say “that’s politics, not law,” and that may well be true, but politics EXISTS in the court room as WELL as law.

      One ignores it at ones peril.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

  21. Interesting that criminals feel no obligation to state their intent when they act aggressively. Having a sign stating how one would respond to such aggression seems more than fair since it’s a unilateral commitment to meet clandestine force with more force!! I will make no apologies regardless how useless attorneys or police want to muddy the issue!!! Perhaps that’s one reason we have such a serious crime problem anymore!!!
    This man will treat criminals with severe force!! And I will have no respect for Law Enforcement who do not respect my right to protect my person, my family, or my property with whatever force is necessary!! Us law abiding citizens have to deal with a dual tyranny, one of an over-reacting and paranoid police force or municipality or with the severe criminal that regards no one or no laws!!

    1. Personally, I’ll not state up front via a sign what I may do or advertise that I have a dozen firearms in my house,
      I’ll let the SOB underestimate me and his position to his sudden and abject failure.
      For, the only hint I want a criminal to have that I’m armed is a brief hint of a muzzle flash before vision has become impossible.

    2. I agree…as you might suspect…let use of force be a surprise! Sun Tsu would approve.

  22. Well there goes the 1st Amendment and the Freedom of Speech. So long 1 it was nice knowing ya. You can go join the 10th and the 14th. I have a feeling that they’ll be seeing the 2nd very soon if these &$*%^ Progressives have their way with us. Remember you can burn the American Flag, you can take down a cross and the 10 Commandments, you just can have cutesie bumper sticker that upsets someone on the left.

    1. You can have one, nobody is saying that you can’t. It can be used to portray you as “trigger happy” if you ever wind up in court for using your firearm. Keep you bumper stickers, signs and license plate frames all you want

    2. Well, obviously the first amendment is gone, as you disparage the separation of church and state, while embracing outlawing the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, which *is* what this article is about, a novel way of taking a political sign or sticker being utilized against someone if they shoot someone to death.
      Meanwhile, you hint objecting to first amendment rights when someone exercised them by burning a flag that they own in protest against something that they disapprove of by our government.

      Please make up your mind, you hate the first amendment for anyone you disagree with, only embracing it for yourself and ignoring the hell out of religion and state being prohibited as cohabitating.

      So, go ahead and incriminate yourself, then either go to prison or lose everything you own because you’re refusing to use a single iota of common sense.
      I’ll use common sense and not do something that could expose me to legal problems, should things turn unfortunate in the future, while using my political free speech in an appropriate arena, not my bumper or yard.

  23. My sign says “don’t worry after I defend myself I promise I’ll dial 911 for whoever’s dead lol”

  24. A Sheriff friend gently hinted that I might want to remove the “If you are found here at night, you will be found here in the morning” sign from my cabin, with the observation: “you know what we call that in law enforcement? Evidence.”

    Made sense. I took it down. I don’t fall on swords for no purpose, and the sign was only meant to be funny, not a deterrence.

  25. I have Marine Corps licence plates on bth vehicles that sit in my driveway. I fly the US flag, the Marine Corps flag and the POW/MIA flag outside my home. There are Marine Corps decals and NRA stickers on my front and back doors. If you are stupid enough to break into my home….your stupid enough to die…..

  26. I as conservative as or more than the next guy….The point is, I AM NOT GOING TO SHOW MY HAND………

  27. It just gets harder and harder to understand why Patriots must cow down to this out of control PC B.S. , We need to be going the other way and taking Back ground instead of stifling our rights. Its Lawyers in the first place that started this PC crap by representing the Scumbags who pray on our Liberties in the name of $$$$ . I will keep my Sign on the front door and take my chances along with all the other True Patriots who will Not go whimpering into the Night.. Have a nice day..

    1. “Its Lawyers in the first place that started this PC crap by representing the Scumbags who pray on our Liberties in the name of $$$$ .”

      So, you believe we should ammend the Constitution to remove the right to seek redress from those whose rights are trampled upon? That would, by definition, include yourself.

      What you are bitching about is a fundamental part of our nation’s government, whereby all are treated equally under the law.
      You appear to want to be more equal than your peer, which is as un-American as can be.
      Our Constitution is clear. You can say what you want, within very narrow exceptions. But, anything you say can and will be used in evidence against you in a court of law if accused of a crime.
      Again, fundamental to our rule of Constitutional law.
      I happen to like my Constitution and won’t permit you or any other person attempt to pervert it.

  28. Many years ago I removed a sign from my home that stated ” Beware of Dog”. My attorney told me if my dog bit someone, that sign said to a jury that I was acknowledging that I had a dangerous animal in my home. By placing a sign stating “Dog on Premises”, I was not admitting the dog was dangerous, only that I HAD a dog. I changed my signs immediately for my own safety from overzealous attorney’s and liberal juries should there be a problem. Problem solved. Maybe a sign stating “Avid Shooter & Sportsman on Premises” in the window instead………

    1. I agree with the “never show your hand” folks. IMO it’s better to not bring attention to yourself. That’s why I don’t have anti obaba/biden stickers on my truck. Windows, tires, and body work are expensive. I thought about puting used targets by the house doors but put them in the garage instead. All that said, please don’t think I’m backing down to the whackjobs cause I’m not. Always be cautious of the quiet guy right? Speak softly and carry big bore calibers. God bless everyone and the USA!!

  29. I have a license plate holder that says-AN ARMED MAN IS A CITIZEN, AN UNARMED MAN IS A SUBJECT. On my rear bumper is my NRA LIFE MEMBER sticker. I live in CA (very anti-gun state) and have never had a problem with the local gendarmes. I’ve always been curious what would happen if they tried to use my displays as Probable Cause for a stop and search. To me it would clearly be a violation of my First Amendment rights.

  30. I served my time defending this country, I don’t give a damn what any sign I have on my truck or on my property says, I will defend myself and my family. If any lawyer has a problem with that, they can refer to the 1st and 2nd Amendment.

  31. I have to agree with Taylor. It is smarter to run silent than broadcasting. Besides, why give LEOs probable cause to stop you. In my view, it is like waiving a red flag in front of the bull. Bumper stickers should be there to reduce not increase exposure. Imagine riding into Ferguson with a George Wallace bumper sticker or Grand Wizard sign on tail gate. Would that be dumb or what? Well, it is not all that different on 2A to many people. Be polite, be respectful, and be ninja.

  32. I tell my spouse, ” grab the gun then dial 911″. I make it into a silly song for her. I will teach my children the same. Also, I keep a ” there is nothing in here worth dying for” sign. What should I think of this sign? I have always considered not putting stickers on my vehicles or residences that would promote my weapons or ability, but what about my non discript sign as mentioned above?

  33. I’ve also heard the same thing about the model name of the firearm being used against a defendant, too!! If it was a mean sounding name, etc. Oh…and also, using handloaded ammo in your defensive gun. Prosecutors tell juries how you sat at your bench manufacturing mean, hotly loaded ammo for the specific purpose of killing someone….and the list goes on of the ways prosecutors will twist things around to go against you.

  34. In 1993 while passing thru OKLA I stopped by H&H Gun Range in OKC and picked up about 5 of their businness bumper stickers that I have proudly displayed on the two Kaulifornia vehicles that I have owned without ever receiving any harament from lowlife or otherwise. It reads “Fight Crime, Shoot Back.” Nothing will stop me from telling everyone how I will behave in defense of my life and people I chose to protect! The images of the Jews being lead to slaughter and more recently Christian beheadings is all I need for motivation to defend my Second Amendment Rights.

  35. How about signs that read WARNING there’s nothing in here worth dying for.. Is that a threat or a Warning . any perp would have to make a choice ,results would be his fault

  36. In firearm hating states ( ma.,de.,md.,ny.,no.,cut.,ri.,ca.) just to name a few. If you shoot a pos,criminal the state attorney for those states come to your house they look at your computers, dvrs, books, DVDs, photos, and anything else that they can use to prosecute you, even if your just in what happened. As a democratic society we no longer control what laws get passed. Corporations do. If you look at states that have passed tough gun laws you will see a increase in big corporations brining business to those states. we the people of America are no longer the bad asses, we are the sheep because we are to scared to stand up for what we believe in. Me I’m buying an island and starting my own country. Calling it native America

    1. Correction on states… Spell check got me not ( NOT NO, BUT NJ. AND NOT CUT, BUT CT.

    2. I live in Kansas, we don’t put up with liberals. We do not call 911, we stand our ground, and then call. We will take our country back someday, but everybody that does love their country needs to start standing up and showing so!

    3. “state attorney for those states come to your house they look at your computers, dvrs, books, DVDs, photos, and anything else that they can use to prosecute you”

      Personally I think this is one of the best points made in this whole discussion.

      Prosecutors don’t need to see if you’re a serial killer or a terrorist just because you righteously shot somebody in defense of your life. We need a system that has a solid check-and-balance against overzealous prosecution.

  37. You are so right Emily we can not give them any extera ammo to use agiants us, that why i do not have bumper stickers and only one sign on the house NO SALES PERSON. That works for me.

  38. All of the power needs to be taken away from the politicians, lawyers, and billionaire corporate executives. Just as “we don’t dial 911” implies, the power should be in the hands of the people. The oppression needs to stop. Seriously, if lawyers are really using the content of a silly sign or sticker to the detriment of someone trying to protect themselves, something is very wrong.

    1. I agree with you 100% a sign does not prove anything, if anything its a written warning. We the people need to stand up against oppression.

    2. If I had a sign it would say,

      “I call 911, because it gets the coroner to come faster.”

  39. They may be funny but they are also a warning. Mine stays. Let’s get rid of lawyers not freedom of speech.

  40. So I have to be careful about words.Yet we are lied to on a constant basis.”It was an anti-islamic video”,”if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”,”global warming is a security threat against the United States”,— so what are the premeditated motives behind those words? Consider that those lies are the “bumper stickers” of an administration out of control. AS obama said “Whose gonna stop me?” Who is gonna stop us?

    1. You forgot “he has weapons of mass destruction and is going to launch them against the U.S.” and “he is trying to build a nuclear weapon” and “mission accomplished” and “they will greet us as liberators” and my personal favorite, “We will bring democracy to the middle east”

    2. This was done at the behest of ‘Israel’. Netanyahu told the West: “If you take out Saddam, I guarantee it will have positive repercussions for the region.” (2002). Yeah,right.

    3. You’ve always had to be careful with words.
      You can’t plan the overthrow of the government, that is sedition. You can’t discuss national secrets, that is a felony. You can’t say that you want to kill a Congrescritter or the President. You can’t make “fighting words”, designed to cause imminent lawless action, that is inciting a riot.
      With every enumerated right we have responsibilities and even duties.
      Free speech is limited in narrow ways. Firearms ownership is barely limited, with the only exception I can think of is you can’t own a nuclear weapon, but you can own a 1000 pound bomb under the NFA destructive weapons designation.

  41. I am a K9 Service Dog Trainer over 4 decades , I own a jacket has a emblem German Shepherd and says “we dont call 911” and thats the way it is and stays.

  42. What other statements should we beware of making because too many prosecutors are just plain out and out scumbag cogs in an imperfect but too many times uncaring justice(?) system wheel? Do we stop writing editors to the editor? Isn’t it also true that we have to worry about ANY statement we EVER made in ANY venue because IT can be used against us? Where does it stop? When we see wrongly convicted citizens freed from decades long prison incarcerations because we now have DNA testing to prove their innocence WHY aren’t the prosecutors and judges who railroaded these innocents held accountable instead of ho-hummed into an even higher paying “Honorable” positions? I appreciate the lady’s good intentions and good advice but I ask MY questions in all sincerity not tongue-in-cheek.

    1. The answer is both simple and complex.
      The simple reason is, District Attorneys are voted in most often on a platform of “Tough On Crime”. Their efficacy judged by the populace based upon their conviction rate.
      Judges in many areas, the same.

      So, how many times have you voted for a District Attorney based upon that platform over say, one who wants to be thorough and certain before “railroading” a suspect?
      Frankly, those are my least favorite elections, as I know that whoever I pick will be one playing the numbers game.

  43. What she’s saying is that while there’s no law against cocky signs & bumper stickers, in the event you do end up facing trial for a self-defense shooting, and it’s not exactly the cleanest shooting that’s ever been, the prosecution will attack your character any way it can to sway a jury against you.

    Your lawyer will be working hard to portray you as a reluctant victim who was forced to shoot, and you don’t want the prosecutor to be able to counter that narrative by simply showing the jury photos of all your smart-aleck signs and bumper stickers that might make you appear to be someone who seems eager to shoot.

    She is advising you to think ahead for the worst-case scenario. Armed self-defense is a dead serious matter, so don’t go around making cocky jokes about it, especially in writing.

  44. Folks, some of you are missing the point here. It isn’t a question of being able to say what we want, or even defend ourselves, it is an issue of being smart about how we do things.

    Example: The open carry crowd walked into a Starbucks with their M-4s, and created a storm that ended up giving the anti’s ammunition to pressure Starbucks and Target into forbidding guns in their stores. While the goal was to demonstrate that they could carry their guns any where they wanted to, what they did in reality was hurt gun owners, not help them.

    Use your heads and fight smart. Don’t be a berserker charging into the enemy guns to be cut down for no return; use smart tactics and keep both yourself and family safer, as well as helping the pro-gun movement.

    1. Good point, why advertise and let the miscreant know where to find firearms to steal when you’re out?
      I have a sign on my house, “Beware of dog”. That’s the extent of it and the dog died a decade ago.
      Nothing whatsoever about firearms visible on the outside. Although, I do keep a couple of zero targets inside of the front porch, that’s just for amusement for when the Jehovah Witlesses come by. (I do enjoy talking religion with them and notice the look of concern their elders have when they realize who is talking to their door stooge. I’ve converted quite a few of them, including elders, away from that insanity factory in the Bronx).

    2. Amen, Wzrd1. I like your style.

      Although I will say that at least the JWs are sincere, unlike most Liberals. 😉

  45. I have these signs posted which are no different than signs warning of armed security or guard dogs. I think it’s more than fair to criminals or intruders to let them know what they will be getting into, and possibly deter their actions. Doesn’t make me gun-crazy or overzealous, but may save me ammunition.

  46. Anyone who reads this who has a lick of ability to comprehend the English language understands it is an exaggeration to make a point. Not a new concept. Anti-2A and or progressive hysteria driven types may use such a sign to attempt to label a person as dangerous or a potential criminal. I say so what? We are ALL POTENTIAL whatever! It depends on the community in which you live on where issues like this go.

  47. Just wanted to say that not all attorneys are anti-Second Amendment. In fact, some of us fight to help keep this right entrenched in our society.

  48. What if I put a sticker on my car/house that says “I don’t call 9-1-1”, but I don’t own a gun?

    Then what?

    Is there still a 1st Amendment?

    1. Where the issue lies is, if you’re advertising something like “Tresspassers will be shot on sight” and then you do just that, some states will allow it, but a civil case can be lodged if you shot little Johnny, who was simply cutting across your property (as many of us did as kids) or somiliar circumstances.
      In short, it’s a stated intent in the eyes of some courts, where one’s protections may be eroded by dispelling a reasonable doubt.

    2. If you can’t tell the difference from a child and an armed intruder on your deserve to spend the rest of your life in prison…better yet..the death penalty…on the other hand..I don’t care if you are carrying an ar15 or a single barrel shotgun…trespass armed on my property without asking permission… in this day and age, I’m going to assume you are there intending harm

  49. Just stick to quotes from the founding fathers. There are plenty that support 2A, and no juror wants to come off as anti-American.

  50. The legal industry is making billions off of “political correctness” and the rest of us are loosing our freedoms to it.

    1. Paul: before we go pissing on the legal profession please consider that common sense here should tell you that prosecutors are looking for premeditation. Something like the bumper stickers she cited could and likely would sway a jury of your peers who are not always too smart.

  51. Shakespeare was right, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”. That would solve many of our problems.

    1. 1) That isn’t a complete sentence.
      2) If it was a sentence it would begins\ with a capital letter.
      3) The word you’re looking fro is “you’re”.
      4) You need to go back several centuries and whine about it to Shakespeare.

  52. I guess if you don’t support the 2nd amendment you sure would not support the first amendment. enough said

  53. Hey McRuger how r u? I hope these sites are monitored so the a-holes who even contemplate Fascist/communist tactics not only think twice but three,four ,five times over.We owe it to those kids who died in the South Pacific and in Europe.

  54. Most of my life I felt much like others here. I thought sticks were clutter and really hated most of the stickers I came across. About 2008 I decided to put 2A stickers on my cars in support of my beliefs and in opposition of the grabbers. I also occasionally wear an 2A tee shirt in public. Let the chips fall as they may. I’ll pose a question here to those that think a bumper sticker is going to land them in jail.
    Do you suppose your posting on this site is any different than a bumper sticker? Please, What you write here is going to sway a jury a lot more than a sticker on your car. If you think we aren’t being monitored you best think again. All of these sites are monitored.

    1. A bumper sticker or hat or shirt isn’t going to be the sole reason one goes to jail. Like I said below, it can be used to show state of mind by a prosecutor who isn’t a backer of the 2nd Amendment.

      I believe the biggest issue would end up being the prosecutor/district attorney. Do you have a gun grabber DA or a DA that believes in self defense? A sticker, sign, hat or shirt won’t make a case but it could point juries in one direction or another.

      Reasonable people don’t wake up in the morning and think “Hmm, I wonder who I get to shoot today.”. I put on my off duty carry weapon because it is a part of clothing like my shirt and shoes. It is a tool. I train with it so that I am proficient in the case that I may have to use it. I don’t look for situations where I will have to use it. Only a fool would want to be tied up in the court proceedings that follow a shooting. Sometimes that can’t be helped. Sometimes you become a victim whether you appear to be one or not. Sometimes you’ve got to act. If you find yourself to be a person who is willing to act when the time comes then it is best to be prepared for the crap storm that will likely come.

    2. Yeah EdH I don’t disagree with what your saying. To tell you the truth I occasionally consider removing the 2A sticker because I don’t really care for how they look but then I think F um. It’s free speech. I do think a guy can go to far such as sticking the fake claymore in your receiver hitch. It’s funny but it isn’t something I would do. I guess I have a basic problem with the socialists being allowed to say and do whatever they want but I have to hide what I support.
      Furthermore I agree with Smitty 550 below.

      Anyway to each his own.

  55. I don’t put stickers on my car because they make it look like a junk heap. Some people like to declare their way of life by slapping stickers on their car and that’s fine. Many of the cars I’ve seen with these things plastered all over them are being held together by them and some duct tape. I’ve found that in certain areas different bumper and window stickers can make you a target. There are times I even feel my steering wheel veering toward a coexist sticker. :-). The majority of the time I just drive on thinking “Oh, that’s nice.”

    If we don’t look like a victim more often then not we won’t be victimized. Be alert about your surroundings, whether you’re comfortable with the area you’re in or not. A piece of paper with glue backer isn’t going to save your life. You are going to save your life. That begins when you wake up in the morning.

    I don’t know how many cases this attorney prosecuted but she couldn’t have done many. She looks like she just graduated high school. I’ve spent my entire adult life dealing with lawyers from both sides of the aisle. They will use anything they can to “Pursue Justice”. A bumper sticker or a sign available at and/or in a crime scene is admissible as evidence and can be used to show state of mind. Like it or not a simple sticker or sign and the wrong prosecutor can turn a victim into an aggressor.

    I have no signs on my vehicles or my property for no other reason then I don’t like clutter. If you have a mind to put up signs or stickers knock yourself out. If you are involved in an incident be sure you can articulate your reasoning and fears that lead to the incident. Be prepared if your local prosecutor is less then a backer of our 2nd Amendment rights.

  56. I agree that it is stupid to advertise that one is or may be armed, but the reason it is stupid has nothing to do with what might happen in court. It is a matter of simple personal security — don’t give out information that can be used against you.

    I am sick and tired of lawyers who spent more time smoking dope during law school than studying, and other rank amateurs, saying stupid and uninformed things about what might happen in court.

    There is no rule of evidence that would allow a prosecutor to introduce a bumper sticker as evidence in a case. PERIOD. It is classic “Irrelevant, Incompetent and Immaterial = Inadmissible.”

    If defense lawyers are letting prosecutors get away with that, they need to grow a pair and spend some time in the law library rather than dredging bars and brothels for clients. If judges are letting prosecutors do that, they need to be removed from the bench. If prosecutors are doing it and not getting disbarred, the entire bench and bar need to hang their collective heads in shame.

    Here is why it is classic “Irrelevant, Incompetent and Immaterial = Inadmissible”:

    There is a court-created rule of evidence called the “Daubert Rule,” which says that no opinion evidence is admissible unless expressed by a qualified expert and supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. The Daubert Rule is simply a special case of the old-fashioned, classic common-law law-of-evidence saying that only actual, real evidence is admissible — “just the facts, Ma’am.” And, so, the Daubert Rule is part of the due process to which every criminal defendant is entitled, even though it technically applies only in federal cases.

    The premise the prosecutor is trying to introduce by introducing a bumper sticker would be the OPINION that a person’s behavior is somehow reflected by his bumper sticker.

    But there is no actual expert on the stand to express the opinion. It is, in essence, the prosecutor silently testifying as to HIS opinion. A good defense lawyer would say “Your Honor, by suggesting that there is a connection between a bumper sticker and behavior Mr. Prosecutor, apparently now claims to be an expert on peoples’ behavior. Let’s get Mr. Prosecutor on the stand for voir dire and go through his resume to see where he supposedly developed that expertise. And if Mr. Prosecutor has a different supposed expert to testify to a supposed connection between bumper stickers and behavior, let’s get that supposed expert on the stand. But, without an opinion supported by peer-reviewed academic articles showing a supposed connection between bumper stickers and behavior, the bumper sticker is not admissible as evidence on my client’s behavior — which is the issue on trial. This trial is about behavior, not expression.”

    As we all know, of course, there is no scientific evidence showing that what is said on a bumper sticker has any relationship to what a person actually DOES. In fact, to the contrary, “as everyone knows” (making the matter worthy of “judicial notice”) there are MILLIONS of bumper stickers on peoples’ cars where there is NO actual connection to the behavior suggested thereby. Has nobody with a “world peace” bumper sticker ever said angry words to someone else? Has nobody with a Christian fish symbol on their car ever cut off another vehicle in traffic? Of course they have — because there is NO connection between bumper stickers and behavior.

    But IF bumper stickers actually reflected a person’s true nature and behavior, then people with “world peace” bumper stickers would be peaceful all the time, and people with Christian symbols on their cars would actually drive like people of good faith ALL THE TIME.

    But we all know from common human experience (again, “judicial notice”) that those things do not bear out to be true in real life. Heck, I know people — and probably does everyone else who is reading this blog — who are actually sane and sentient (so they wouldn’t support Obama) and who work in crappy areas who have Obama stickers on their cars specifically in order to prevent vandalism.

    But even if a prosecutor was stupid enough to try it and a judge was stupid enough to allow it, any defense lawyer who does not have his head up his rear end would actually use the prosecutor’s idiocy to his advantage. Just prepare by asking the jury pool during voir dire what bumper stickers they have seen on cars, and whether they believe that a person’s bumper sticker control his mind. So, in closing, the defense lawyer could gain an advantage by pointing out that a prosecutor who stoops that low is actually telling the jury “I have no real evidence so I am trying to eff with your minds to get you to convict someone who I actually cannot prove to you is guilty.”

    The bottom line from the technical law-of-evidence perspective is that there simply is no such thing as “state of mind” evidence other than a person’s ACTUAL BEHAVIOR at the time of the incident in question. That’s the law, and I dare anyone to try to prove to me otherwise (but be forewarned that I am a real expert on the law-of-evidence, have helped, literally, “write the book”). Anything else proposed as evidence of a defendant’s “state of mind” is complete horse manure — and every lawyer and every judge who actually ever understands even the most basic precepts of the law-of-evidence knows this.

    1. All well and good, Pete, but it makes no difference to the rest of us poor slobs who woud be saddled with the expense of hiring a lawyer to defend ourselves against yet another stupid law suit. We might end up “right,” but “broke.” Our legal system stinks—especially when we leave things up to twelve dummies called “jurors.”

    2. “There is no rule of evidence that would allow a prosecutor to introduce a bumper sticker as evidence in a case.”

      You’re naive. Yes, the judge might allow the defense to object. He might even tell the jury to disregard it. Bottom line is that is like unringing a bell.

    3. US v. Stone, 852 F.Supp.2d 820 (E.D. Mich. 2012)…bumper stickers were held to be admissible. It was to show conspiratorial intent, but still admissible under the same rules of evidence that would be applied in most criminal proceedings.

      Speaking of irrelevant…why are you even discussing the Daubert Rule? I think you’re missing the mark regarding it being presented as opinion evidence. Most bumper stickers could merely be offered for the truth of the matter asserted (of course depending on the actual language of said bumper sticker). Most of your comments against its admissibility would go to the “weight of the evidence” (to be considered by the jury), not its admissibility. Sure, the defense counsel could and should argue that it was “mere puffery” or satirical, but that would be up to the jury to evaluate that evidence.

      Its best and most easily admissible method would be to impeach the defendant’s testimony (provided of course that the defendant chooses to testify). There would be no question about it’s admissibility for that purpose. Facebook and website postings have also been held to be admissible, even when “uttered” prior to the act as well.

      I agree there would be hurdles to it being admissible in most instances, but you shouldn’t be so dismissive of the possibility. Even if not admissible ultimately in a court proceeding, it might cause a DA or law enforcement to view you in a different light…as a criminal defendant.

    1. Your rights do not come from the government They come from the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of rights, and most importantly the those who have fought with some losing their lives to keep them to keep your freedoms.
      As of late the government has tried to limit those rights.

    2. I find your comment offensive and ignorant. It is so ignorant that , that is what makes it offensive.

      Our government comes from the constitution. At least it did at one time (sarcasim). Before we could have a constitution, we had to win our independence from England.

      This war was brought about by a little thing King George didn’t want to except. The Declaration of Independence.. The beginning of the second paragraph starts: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..

      This was the true beginning of our nation.

      The Bill of Rights spells out what the government CAN’T do to the citizens of this country.

      The vast majority of the men who signed the Declaration were believers in GOD. These men won our freedom, and every soldier who has died since, whether he or she be Christian, Jew, Islamic,, or any other religion, along with all the atheists have kept our freedom, The ” government” couldn’t exist without them.

      So whether you, or I believe in a creator doesn’t matter to history. The founders of our government did.

  57. Yep I already thought about this many years ago. Not just for gun related bumper stickers, but other things too. My vehicles have zero bumper stickers.

    The very worst thing I ever saw on any car was about 5 years ago, on the main I17 freeway in Central Phoenix, an old pickup that looked like it came out of the mountains had a LIFE SIZE doll of a Mexican man dressed in full Mexican style clothing and sombrero, pasted to the front grill of the truck. My feeling was if that redneck drove about 8 more miles more south, about 8 more hours later into the night, he was a prime candidate for a driveby shooting.

  58. I don’t put jokes on my car. I do have a couple of stickers supporting 2A and I plan on keeping them. If i’m not mistaking it is my right to do so.

    1. I have the usual “hunting” stickers on my window, as well as my “powered by Hornady” sticker, and NRA, Harley Davidson stickers, and one of those terrorist hunting permits stickers , ALL are on my rear windows. All are easily able to be removed due to it being on glass. Not one is on my bumper, and when I see a car, which is plastered with stickers everywhere, I start to look for the gore, Obama,Biden stickers as almost everyone whom is a demoLiberal, THINKS that we care what they think!
      But, there is just ONE bumper sticker that I would put on my car, and it would be put on my front bumper, which reads: RUN HILLARY RUN! ( not that I like her, it would be inferring that she would get RUN OVER! And, unless I actually ran over someone named HILLARY, I COULDN’T HAVE ANY LEGALITY PROBLEMS, I WOULD THINK?

    2. Actually, presidential candidates enjoy Secret Service protection and might actually consider that a threat worthy of investigating. They’re infamously lacking in a sense of humor.

      I’ve long held a highly successful practice of making threats that are so outlandish, even the village idiot or Secret Service would understand without a doubt both the lack of a real desire to complete the attempt and the impossibility of being able to physically carry out the threat.
      Such as, “If you do that, I’m going to beat you with the USS Enterprise, then shoulder fire the USS New Jersey’s main gun at you”, or “I’ll rip your skull off and beat you over the head with it”.
      It avoids federal charges or blocking of an account.

      BTW, if I did see you with that sticker in proximity to any POTUS candidate, I’d be forced to tie your shoelaces together.

    3. Hope Hillary stays out of the mountains in East Tennessee then! Although, I don’t have a Run Hillery Run sticker , the roads here do not support driving 92 mph to escape from the throngs of avid democrats. Lots of cliffs a round the Dragon’s Tail( and some real beautiful scenery ) actually, I could care less about her or any of the political hacks, unless they come here to step on our toes, then I would beat them in the head ith the Statue of Liberty!

    4. How dare you threaten to dirty Lady Liberty! 😉

      More seriously, they have the right to travel whereever in the land they desire to do so and they have the right to say whatever stupid things that they have to say. Our Constitution demands that.
      The Constitution doesn’t demand you vote for anyone you don’t want to. 🙂

      And that is the sweetest revenge possible, their wasting their breathe, time and money.

  59. Actually, it’s always much better to remain the ‘Grey Man’ and not attract attention to yourself. It may be fun to have those “cool” bumper stickers and signs, but why advertise to the world that you are probably carrying a gun. It doesn’t matter if you do it as an ‘in your face’ to the Libs, it still puts YOU at the disadvantage.

  60. That’s why I have one picture of a well-known statist. It’s there for my defense team, should I ever have cause to call on them.

    It’s absolutely NOT there for dry-fire practice. No sir. /;-)

  61. In a like vein, you might want to take those Yankee Baseball stickers off your car if you’re in the South. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House, but Yankees are still not really welcome by some in the South.
    After all, there’s no need to advertise that you are a carpet bagger or descended from a ruthless invader.
    Hang on to your Confederate money boys, for the South shall rise again. LOL
    Remember, The First Amendment just isn’t what it used to be.

  62. I agree, why would one want to give the edge to a prosecutor. God forbid one must use deadly force (gun) for self-defense. A good prosecutor would show a 3′ x 5′ foot placard of ones’ bumper sticker to sway the jurors…………….They may be funny to read, but there is a dark side to them as well………

  63. I wonder if people who plaster those absurd Obama/Biden stickers are ever dragged into court? Ummm…..I don’t think so. It’s sad that the law no longer respects freedom of speech or the Constitution that was written to guarantee it.

    Have any of you been following the outrageous acts of a rogue prosecutor who ordered the police in early morning hours to batter down the doors of residents who supported Scott Walker in Wisconsin? If you haven’t, I can’t blame you; the national news media has largely ignored the story. Watch “The Kelly File” on FOX. This is no joke; it should be a reminder that parts of the legal system have broken down, and that the Nazi Storm Troopers are alive and well in Amerika.

    1. I read a short article recently about the thug behavior. Those who supported Walker were targeted. Most likely had a lot of “union” thugs involved someway. I am orry, but if my door gets kicked in in the wee hours of the morning, I have “bad eye sight” and I don’t give a damn if hey are in a officers uniform. They WILL get shot. I don’t deal drugs, or rob banks etc…. So in no way should the police ever have ANY legal reason to kick my door down without a knock on he door, and for them to patiently await my arrival to open said door. Buck shot, or a slug, or my CCW , or maybe my hunting rifle is at my Becken call. Loaded and awaiting my call to defend my castle. Of course , I don’t live in Wisconsin, but the rights of defending one “Self” applies everywhere.

    2. I agree, if someone kicks in the door and doesn’t present a warrant clearly, it’s zero reflex shot time.

      So years ago, several friends were raving about how the chief of police of Philadelphia was behind his cops, as he authorized officers to, upon entry to a home, to shoot any dog on sight. Needless to say, they were cops.
      I said, that was a really bad idea, as if I were to hear my door being knocked in and shots were fired on entry at my dog, I know that I’m in the United States of America, where such things do not happen, so I’d draw my pistol and engage the armed and dangerous intruders.
      The room went cold, the faces pale. They fired with me and remembered my perfect score and zero reflex shot I qualified with.

      Remember, warrants are occasionally issued for a wrong address and sometimes, cops get the address wrong.

  64. Good video but I guess the “progressives” win out again. I thought personal signs and bumper stickers fell under the same laws as the ungrateful closet-communists burning and pissing on Old Glory … ???

  65. Good Luck on prosecuting us because I have a sign or bum,per sticker.
    I also have one on my door that says This door is for your protection,Not mine..once you break in, I don’t fire warning shots…Ammo’s too expensive to waste! Think again!

  66. great video. lets me know that i should not expect too much from my lawshield attorney if i pictorially declare i will not put up with someone threatening my life. i always welcome attorneys who are willing to tell the truth.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.