TexasCHLforum.com

NO NO!!! We don't want to bring this to the attention of the sheeple public. Way too many bad things would happen from that. And, we don't want the businesses knowing that their post improperly. I like some of them.

lcarreau wrote:So, you believe that when the police arrive because they got a guy with gun call, you can simply make your argument about the meaning of block letters and contrasting colors and all will be well? Do you expect the prosector will let it go? Or do you see yourself doing a Johnny Cochran at you trial, saying "If the sign and statute don't fit, you must aquit."? When you are on trial, what source will you use foir the meaning of block letters?

-Lonnie

It doesn't matter. I won't ever be vistiting their establishment anyways.
Of course if KBCraig is right, then my defense would be obvious.

My credible and substantial argument is the law itself. It is very clear. I will not take one anonymous Wiki poseter's interpretation of "block letters" as my basis for understanding a law that has serious ramifications. If that is where you wish to put your trust, then so be it.

As I posted before, the DPS has an example of a 30.06 sign here. The only problem is that when viewed with different screen resolutions, it can't be promised that you will see it as inch high letters.

The sign is supposed to be prominently place so that no matter who you are or whether or not you are carrying a gun, you WILL see it. It supposed to be ugly and obtrusive to draw attention. Any attempt to "pretty" it up by changing the specs or to move it out of the clear view of the public renders it unenforcable.

txinvestigator wrote:From Wikipedia;

Block letters may mean any of the following :

In America, they are simple letters that children are taught to write in first grade. They have no serifs and are upright. The name presumably comes from their appearance on wooden blocks that children play with, although these often use conventional Roman typeforms. Deriving from this usage, “block letters� any crude serif or sans-serif font that is formed by cutting a material such as wood or metal without the finer-artistry sophistication usually associated with professional type design in typography.
On official forms, when one is asked to write one's name, the request is usually made to write entirely in capital letters (block letters). This is because cursive handwriting, and especially signatures, can be hard to read. It is often misconstrued that one must write in capital letters when writing in block letters. Contrary to popular belief, and requests from Treasury, block letters can be written in both upper and lower case, at the writer's discretion. Cases such as Fossil Inc v The Fossil Group involving patents, trademarks and registration of designs clearly indicate that block letters may comprise of either lower or upper case.

Oh good, we turn to Wikipedia for answers to a legal question. Hey Charles, do you rely on Wiki when you're researching a case? Obviously its "the" place to get truthful information.

"Good faith" effort or not, the law is the law and they must abide by it just as I must. I don't get the leisure to bend it at will and be expected to get away with it. The example given by the DPS is what the sign should resemble, and theirs simply doesn't.

"Not cursive or script" is called print, not block.

lcarreau wrote:How are they not block letters?

Block letters are all capitalized and all the same height (same width too, I think). The museum tried to use some fancy script to keep it appealing. The law is specific. It may look ugly in the end, but if you wish to restrict, that's what you have to deal with.

EDIT: The Texas DPS has a very good example of what the sign must look like. Apart from the size, which will differ based on the resolution of the screen it is viewed on, this is the proper signage: Proper 30.06 signage
Notice the block letters?

Negative!
Penal code states:
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.

Letter (ii) says they must be block letters and they ALL must be 1" in height. Regardless of whether you think it's contrasting, it still doesn't meet this req.
Also, letter (iii) says that it must be displayed in a "conspicuous manner". That means that it must "attract special attention, as by outstanding qualities or eccentricities" to comply. Does this sign? No.

My opinion: Good try, but not legal.
If they don't wand, I carry.

casselthief wrote:I think you're trying to get a little technical on the validity of the sign it's self. I think white on a dark background is contrasting.
good luck on winning that fight.

Contrasting nothing!!! I'm pretty sure clear glass is not a contrasting color.
Anyways, were the other entrances posted? Well, first I should ask if there are other entrances.

Liberty wrote:

JohnKSa wrote:If I rent or lease a building on govt. property for the purpose of a business, does the law actually prevent me from posting a 30-06 sign that carries the weight of law?

My understanding to now has been that the business owner has the right to post the sign regardless of who actually owns the building as long as he has leased or rented rights to the building. Are we really saying that is not the case? That a person renting a building from the govt. can not post the sign?

The sign has no bearing if it is on city owned property. If there is a sign there you have a defense for carrying a concealed handgun if you have a CHL. You can legally carry even if there is a sign.

They can also post a sign that says "No Dumb People Allowed". That sign is also meaningless. But there is nothing stopping the leasee from putting up any sign they want.

We'll see if thats true. Everybody just wait for the "official" word. You all know its coming.

Even though the law does not offer a punishment for a govt entitiy that restricts, can't the local DA pressure the issue to be changed? I don't know what he could use to press it except maybe negative advertising againts the current Sheriff in the next election.

Nope, I'm gonna take their badge numbers straight over to the DA's office and let him deal with what he already sees as a problem.

txinvestigator wrote:

kauboy wrote:Yeah me too. This defense to prosecution stuff is stupid. If the officer has enough evidence to arrest you then obviously he thinks you have broken the law? On the flip side, if you will have a lawful defense, why make the arrest?

Because an officer arrest on Probable cause. It is your responsibility, and not the LEO's to determine your defense.

So a LEO can arrest me because I don't fit the bill as an upstanding citizen, even though he has no evidence that I have committed a crime. That sounds fair.

I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!

We have that concept now, its called non-applicability.

My point was, all "defense to prosecution" clauses should be changed. Non-applicability simply means that it is not illegal in that particular case.

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

He said that the building is a "local county government center". I doubt its privately owned. A person inside the facility cannot overstep the law that the facility must follow. So I don't understand your "public entity" point.

Arock, now I understand. So the DA just needs to push the elbow a little deeper into the Sheriff's side then, huh?

SeamusTX, your not kidding. In these instances, the law is only protecting the citizen:
1. If they can get a good lawyer to argue for the "defense to prosecution"
2. If they have enough money to drag through a long court battle
3. If they can do so from in jail or if they can afford the bail

Its completely unfair!

Yeah me too. This defense to prosecution stuff is stupid. If the officer has enough evidence to arrest you then obviously he thinks you have broken the law? On the flip side, if you will have a lawful defense, why make the arrest?

I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!


Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

I think TXI is referring to 30.05 when he says that you cannot carry after being verbally told that they don't allow it. I don't think you can be charged with TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED, but I think you can still be charged with CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

Is that what you meant TXI?
If not, then I would have to agree with barres here and say that clause (e) negates all of 30.06 while a CHLer is on govt property.