TAM, did she claim there was any on-point case law? It was my understanding that there haven't been any 30.06 prosecutions, so I would think that the applicability would still be unknown. What if you're bilingual?The Annoyed Man wrote:Ask Crossfire. When I took my renewal class a few months ago, we covered exactly this situation. If the wording is correct in english, but not correct in spanish (which is more often the case), then the sign is compliant for english speakers, but not compliant for spanish speakers.........and visa versa....if it is correct in spanish but not in english, then it is compliant for spanish speakers but not compliant for english speakers. I don't agree with that logic, but apparently that is how the law is currently interpreted and enforced by the courts, DPS, and anybody else that has authority in the matter.harrycallahan wrote:I am not sure you're correct. To be compliant it has to fit ALL of 30.06 and that includes both English and our brothers to the south, Spanish.The Annoyed Man wrote:TECHNICALLY, that sign is compliant for spanish speakers, and non-compliant for english speakers. But I agree that its intent is pretty clear, and I doubt that the typo would stand up in court as a defense to prosecution, as every other letter/word on the sign is compliant.
Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.
Maybe Crossfire will chime in...