Every polling place I have been to has made you read an oath affirming your eligability before you sign the register.

Actually, I have never seen a sign like this at the polling place I go to in St. Paul. In this particular place, on Thursday morning, there were six people registering new voters and only two handling the pre-registration books and two handing out ballots.

I respectfully suggest that sending letters to a county official who a) clearly doesn't care about the facts, b) has his mind made up, and c) enjoys local public support on this isn't going to help. Acting up will make matters worse, because there isn't any local public support for our side. A fair and balanced strib article about someone showing up at the polls with a BUG on his hip in (gasp!) direct violation of the signs and placards is going to help us .... how?

Minnesota gun law doesn't disallow the posting of specious notices that have no basis in law. The sheriff can post a prohibition against .25 ACP at the city limits and though such a sign will have no lawful effect there is no basis for legal action to have it removed.

Instead, this should be seen and addressed as the political stunt that it is.

There are federal and state statutes against electioneering. Gun control is an issue before the voting public. These signs are advocacy for gun control and serve no other practical purpose. There is a wide body of case law regarding electioneering and the courts have shown great willingness to overrule local officials.

So, let's see:
a) Signs erected to intimidate voters that have no actual legal effect
b) Immediately adjacent to the polling area
c) Visually designed to induce fear among some groups of voters (i.e. people who are scared of guns).
d) Purportedly addressing a problem that does not exist (I am unaware of any disruption of the polls by armed individuals at any time in Minnesota history)
e) Raising in voters' minds an issue that is, one way or another, part of the platform of the majority of candidates for public office

I don't know whether it's worth it or not but I would think that the courts would be far more sympathetic to this sort of reasoning than a hypothetical one about preemption and the authority of the local sheriff. I also think that it is more effective from a public relations standpoint to address the political effect of the signs than whether or not they actually restrict carry.

This, "my friends," is a great point and seems worth looking into.

Still no reply from Mr. Lookingbill; should I prod him about the ban on county property or let it be for the nonce?

He's never going to "voluntarily admit error.
His bosses like his conclusion. And they pay him well for it.
RC has $$$ to fight any lawsuit. After all, it's your money.

They do not care that they are "wrong."
They ARE politically correct as far as their voters are concerned.

Let it be.

Okely-dokely.

This is not nessacerily true. Since I own property in washington county and live in chisago I can vote in chisago for most things but school tax levys are voted on in both.