TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub

sjfcontrol wrote:Umm, perhaps, but ONE of the definitions of "verbal" is...

Pertaining to language in general, or to spoken words in particular.
Thus there is at least an implication of spoken words in the term.

Of course, there are other definitions that are more generic.

Absolutely. Verbal can be oral or written, but oral can only be oral. And the statute is clear in that it does say "verbal."

C-dub

I had no specific person in mind and was quite guilty of the misuse of the word "verbal" before I was enlightened. I just noticed that "verbal" was getting used a lot and thought that some might be using it when they really mean "oral."

As bad as my memory is about some things, it could have been you, RPB, that enlightened me.

C-dub

We need to be careful of our use of verbal vs. oral. I don't remember who, but someone pointed out to me sometime ago on this forum that "verbal" is not necessarily "oral." Verbal merely means "with words" and can be written, but "oral" means the spoken word or "by mouth."

The requirement as stated in 30.06 is specific that notice must be either oral or written and also goes further to define what written must include. And we are also aware that a sign has to have certain physical characteristics.

C-dub

Was he really? Does oral notice by someone stating company policy cut it or does one have to be told by someone with the authority to do so?

Even though I am a manager at my company I've been told I have no authority to enforce company policy with regards to security issues. The COO has told us all that security is everyone's responsibility, but when I ask to see someone's company ID, that wasn't displayed, and I didn't recognize them a complaint was made to HR and it trickled to my boss. He told me not to do that again and just notify security. A couple of our "security" folks required canes to get around and can't use the stairs. They have to use the elevator. A few more probably got this job after their retirement funds dwindled away with the market last year.

C-dub

jmra wrote:Reply to cwood;

I would like to clarify some of the statements I made. It was my understanding that the question was related to what is legal and what is not legal. A sign posted in an employee break room with four walls and a door could not possibly meet even the intent of the law much less the actual requirements of the law for the general public and therefore can not apply to the general public outside the break room. I do believe that the law would apply in the break room to whoever entered the break room, this is why I stated, after becoming aware of the sign in the break room, I would not enter the break room armed. I understand that the wording is wrong, however, if the sign was posted at the entrance or in plain view upon entering the building (even with incorrect wording/sizing) I would leave immediately.

JMRA, I don't disagree with your choice to err on the side of caution. I usually do the same, but if I were in your shoes in this case I would continue to CC. On the legal side, though, it is like Kythas and I pointed out earlier. A sign must be in a conspicuous place visible to the "public." Otherwise, the sign has no legal weight. A sign in a room that only certain people have access to is an invalid sign altogether. There's nothing in the law that says a sign placed like this applies to those that have access to it.

Add to this the fact that the wording is incorrect and you have the distinct possibility that whoever placed it there did so to appease some ignorant liberal gun fearing soul. If you do ask for permission you might even find that out.

C-dub

sjfcontrol wrote:OR -- Just have your GF remove/destroy the sign!
(Just a joke -- probably not a very good idea!)

I had considered the same advice, but you just never know where there might be cameras.

Through all of the discussion about who this incorrect sign applied to it was pointed out that it must be in a conspicuous place clearly visible to the public. However, since the "public" cannot see this incorrect sign would it even apply to anyone? Even the employees? It might be expensive, but I don't think it would even legally apply to the employees for both of those reasons.

edit: Oops. My typing was not as fast as Kythas'.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Another 30.06 posting thread...

Re: Another 30.06 posting thread...

Re: Another 30.06 posting thread...

Re: Another 30.06 posting thread...

Re: Another 30.06 posting thread...

Re: Another 30.06 posting thread...