Return to “Is this 30.06 sign posted at Wholefoods compliant?”
Red top or left on the light. That is unless you run across this scenariosjfcontrol wrote:How does he know what to do at a stoplight?jimlongley wrote: And then you get into colors that color blind people cannot distinguish. My brother in law cannot tell the difference between red and green, which would usually be considered contrasting colors.
No no no, you have that confused. Red and green are not contrasting colors, they are Christmas colors!!jimlongley wrote: My brother in law cannot tell the difference between red and green, which would usually be considered contrasting colors.
Well, not really for all printing. Contrasting colors are actually 'complementary colors' http://desktoppub.about.com/od/glossary ... colors.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_colors" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;rivertripper wrote:Thanks Keith, but wouldn't that make every printed matter "contrasting colors"?
Regretably, the DPS does not promulgate the signs; also, there probably is no
Texas case law on this.
At a minimum, I do understand the principle of - you can beat the rap but not the ride.
Sorry, no. The requirement lines are separate (i) and (ii), so it does not require English in one color and Spanish in another.rivertripper wrote:If you see a "real" 30.06 sign it is the lettering that is contrasting
as between English and Spanish, generally the English in one color
and the Spanish in the other
The statute calls for a "sign posted on the property that...
includes the language described in paragraph a...
in both English and Spanish...
and appears in contrasting colors...
block letters...
at least one inch in height...
is displayed in a conspicuous manner...
clearly visible to the public
Below is a valid 30.06 sign(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
I think I am going to amend the phrase to 'Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and 30.06 signs'.C-dub wrote:They are not very different nor am I arguing that they are. I am saying that to try and use either as a defense is extremely weak and I would use neither. I am also not one of the folks using the argument that because the sign(s) in the OP don't look like what we normally see that they are not valid. If you'll notice, I'm one of the first back on page one that is arguing that these do meet the elements of a valid sign and have continued to do so.
Ah, OKEEllis wrote:Not arguing, I was trying to support your comments. My badKeith B wrote:I think you are arguing with a point I agree with you on. I say there is no definition of how the signs must be laid out, so as long as the language is there and the points of the law are met, then the letters on glass, seperate englsih and spanish signs on different sides of the door, etc are all valid IMO.EEllis wrote:Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........Keith B wrote:Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. I says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.
I think you are arguing with a point I agree with you on. I say there is no definition of how the signs must be laid out, so as long as the language is there and the points of the law are met, then the letters on glass, seperate englsih and spanish signs on different sides of the door, etc are all valid IMO.EEllis wrote:Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........Keith B wrote:Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. I says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.
Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.
TABC does not have a specific wording requirement, other than making sure the sign conveys the fact that "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." See https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.Scott Farkus wrote:Yes, I understand all that. Did you look at the picture posted by the OP?Keith B wrote:The TABC sign does grant you permission to carry there, it just says it's not against the law. The TABC requires those signs to be posted, so the property owner does not have an option.
The property owner DOES have the option to not post a 30.06, as that is their choice to post it to prevent carry by a CHL. So, they are stating they do not want you carrying there and have followed the requirements in the statutes to legally prevent it.
The point is that it appears that Whole Foods has taken the TABC sign language, modified the language in some bizarre fashion to point out that the TABC code allows you to carry if you have a CHL, but then says "but we won't let you carry here" and splices the 30.06 language onto the end. It's a very goofy - and frankly stupid - way to do it as they go out of their way to tell you that they are forbidding what state law allows. It's bizarre to me that they would go to this much trouble when the requirements are otherwise pretty cut and dried.
Can a business modify a TABC sign? I was under the impression that TABC's language was promulgated just like 30.06.
The TABC sign does grant you permission to carry there, it just says it's not against the law. The TABC requires those signs to be posted, so the property owner does not have an option.Scott Farkus wrote:I took my daughter ice skating at the downtown Austin Whole Foods this afternoon and had the exact same question about the sign as the OP. I even took a picture and was intending to post it here. Great minds think alike!
fwiw, there was an identical sign next to the one I saw in Spanish, so I guess they have that part covered. I don't know whether the letters were 1" or not, I didn't measure. I assume for the sake of discussion that they are although overall the sign seemed smaller than others I've seen.
My question was with the wording. As someone noted, they seem to be sort of combining a TABC blue (non 51%) sign with a 30.06. I guess there's nothing technically wrong with that except that I thought TABC promulgated their signs, and I didn't think the blue signs went out of their way to say that you can carry concealed if you have a license. So there's that.
I know that there is not a standard, promulgated form of 30.06 other than the 1" and Spanish requirements, but I've never seen one as anything other than a stand-alone. But I'm not aware of anything saying that can't combine it with anything they want as long as the required wording is there in the proper size.
What is strange, to me anyway, is why would you state that you CAN carry concealed under one statute if you have a license, but then in the very next breath say "but you can't do it here because of this other statute". Why not just post the required TABC blue sign and then post a 30.06? This makes no sense. The statutes aren't that hard to understand and some lawyer somewhere had to come up with this goofy hybrid version on his own.
