TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

Sure, a person in El Paso (actually, anywhere in Texas but El paso seems to be one of the likeliest places, the Rio Grande Valley is also highly probable) who only reads and writes Spanish (may understand English when spoken, but not literate in the language) can have a CHL and get stopped for violating a 30.06 sign that has poor translation on it. How he got caught is totally irrelevant to whether or not the sign would be valid.

sjfcontrol wrote:It's a stretch because claiming that bad Spanish invalidates a 30.06sign is a stretch -- at least for English speakers.

But I don't understand your other comment -- you expect someone to defend themself without breaking concealment?

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

If someone conceals really bad and goes somewhere that posts a sign and therefore doesn't deserve our business. It can be avoided by following the "don't do stupid things" and/or the "don't go stupid places" rules.

Let's try one more time.

OK, lets try this one. You are in a location with a valid-english, but poorly-worded-spanish 30.06 sign. A teenager wearing a hoodie and carrying tea and skittles, decides to start pounding your head into the sidewalk. You pull your gun, and shoot him.

You're subsequently arrested, and attempt to use the Castle law to justify your actions. However, the prosecutor points out that one of the three requirements for use of that defense is that the actor "was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used." He claims that you violated PC 30.06, a class-A misdemeanor. You now must argue that the 30.06 sign is invalid because the spanish part is wrongly worded. (If you are a native-english speaker, I think you may be in for an uphill battle! )

gringo pistolero wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

If someone conceals really bad and goes somewhere that posts a sign and therefore doesn't deserve our business. It can be avoided by following the "don't do stupid things" and/or the "don't go stupid places" rules.

jeffrw wrote:

WildBill wrote:Exact translations are very difficult and sometimes impossible.
IANAL, but since the exact text of the Spanish translation is not in the Penal Code, I wouldn't be trying to nitpick translations. I believe that intent of the Spanish translation is to notify people who do not speak English so they couldn't claim that they did not receive proper notice.

I agree that is the intent, but while the exact Spanish isn't specified, it must say substantially the same thing. I wonder, if the English text completely omitted the word "concealed" and replaced the word "handgun" with the more general term "firearm", would it still be compliant? I don't know, but that is exactly what the Spanish text has done.

That being said, I completely agree that carrying past the sign based on such details would be very risky/unwise. I can't imagine any LEO buying that justification, and I imagine one's chances with the judge would be pretty low, too.

jeffrw wrote:As most of us know, a 30.06 sign has very specific language that must be shown in both English and Spanish to be valid. Legally, the English must read as follows:

• "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

The exact Spanish wording is not stated in the law, but every sign I've seen is as follows:

• "Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar portando armas de fuego) personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de portar armas), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando un arma de fuego."

Maybe someone can correct my understanding of Spanish (which is okay, not fluent), but I translate this as follows:

• "In accordance with Section 30.06 of the Penal Code (trespass carrying firearms), persons with a license under subchapter H, chapter 411, Government Code (law on carrying arms), must not enter this property carrying a firearm."

I realize I'm nitpicking, but this is a different statement. First, PC §30.06 is not titled "Trespass Carrying Firearms". The actual title is longer. Second, the Spanish translation refers only to "firearms" whereas the English refers specifically to handguns. Third, at no point does the adjective "concealed" (oculta) appear in the Spanish translation. To be in compliance, it seems the Spanish translation would have to be roughly as follows (again, feel free to correct my Spanish):

• "Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar de persona con licencia portar arma corta de fuego oculta), personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de arma corta de fuego oculta), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando una arma corta de fuego oculta."

Since the actual language on these signs does differ between English and Spanish, wouldn't that technically invalidate them? Hmm...

Regardless, I don't plan on being a "test case" for this, especially since my native language is English. All the usual disclaimers apply. (I am not a lawyer, proceed at your own risk, etc.)