TexasCHLforum.com

What I meant was if 30.06 signs, instead of being things that keep us from doing something, just imagine if they were signs that gave us liberty to do something we wanted to do.

If one of those mystical empowering signs was posted in a way where the required text spanned across two sheets of paper, would anyone say, "Nope, even though the words are there, even though I want to be allowed what that signs says, I'll keep my shackles and won't enjoy my civil rights. The sign, after all, spans two sheets of paper."

That's all I meant.

If whether or not the 30.06 fits on a single sheet of paper is material, then a mirror-image situation would seem as reasonable.

Your mileage may vary. Personally, I plan to accept generally prohibitive signs at face value. A mere "no guns" sign not generally in line with 30.06, I wouldn't slow down. I would avoid the place in the future, but I wouldn't risk messing with a gun for a sign that doesn't mean much. I think a "no guns" sign really means just leave it in the leather.

Many signs and outdoor displays are put up in segments or strips. I think many large billboards are created that way. A jury might very reasonably consider a sign constructed of two or more panels flying in close formation is good enough. Paraphrasing Bill Engvalls, they might just say, "Here's your sign."

The way I try to look at questions like this is in mirror image.

Let's say the law had been written so as to require explicit authorization from a property owner to allow access with your peashooter. Not a 30.06 law, but it's mirror image, a 60.03. So to speak.

Would I argue that because the sign granting me permission to carry spanned across two sheets of paper it was meaningless and I was still prohibited?

My opinion may change. I try to throw out the crazy ones every so often, and I don't carry a firearm anywhere, at present.

If my CHL ever gets here, I'll join the debate for real, I guess.