Or it was the City of Irving posting the sign on their convention center when they have no legal claim to do it.speedsix wrote:OldCannon wrote:My understanding is that 30.06 was clearly specified so that the signage wouldn't have variations. Otherwise a business owner can claim a simple "gunbusters" sign is sufficient "intent", right?
...right, like a 51% sign ...the law is specific so that we know where we stand...it gives us a mark to hit...and when we hit it...we're safe...no moving the goalposts during the game...allowing any size lettering contrary to the specified size is just like writing us a ticket for doing 40 when it's posted 40 and telling us "well, we meant 30"...
I've thought about this a lot. It seems to me that unless you have a particularly sharp eyed LEO, the chances of catching someone who has good concealment with a gun past an invalid 30.06 is pretty close to zero. Now, if you have bad or minimal concealment, they can easily prosecute you on intentional failure to conceal and you still don't create the correct case law for the sign. It almost takes a double fault (sign + bad concealment) to get caught.
If I were going to try it, I'd carry past the Irving Convention Center sign. There, you could hope for deep pockets if you are detected and arrested. My view is that that ending (Irving is sued in civil court for incorrect signage) is pretty farfetched. It would be easier to get struck by lightning.