TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

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.

I think I am going to amend the phrase to 'Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and 30.06 signs'.

Good one!

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote:

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. 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.

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 ..........

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.

If your lawyer is down to arguing those points of law, then I don't like your chances. Some points are just not worth pushing. Walking past this Wholefood sign(s) is one of them.

EEllis wrote:

SRH78 wrote: When did I ever suggest that it was a good idea to challenge the signage? Please show me.

No you stated that it was an invalid sign. So no you didn"t say go challenge it but I think my responce was appropriate to your comment. If you don't feel free to ignore.

Couldn't find it, huh? I said that IMO, the sign is not technically correct. That is because it is physically 2 separate signs. I also said carrying past it would likely cost you dearly and I wouldn't carry past it. So, what exactly is your argument?

Yes you said it was incorrect, but why? It has everything that would be needed by law. That is my point. It isn't some trick that would allow the cops to bust you even if they shouldn't. My point was I didn't get why people were going on like the sign should be considered invalid. That was my point and what I addressed. No argument just that the sign is valid and your "but it's 2 sheets" has no legal basis.

BTW, you conveniently ignored my question.

Cuz I didn't care and it has zero effect on any legal argument. I addressed a legal point and didn't feel like worrying about the mental state of some merchant. The convenience of that was solely about not discussing something entirely pointless to anything I said.

No disrespect intended, but please hold on a minute so I can get a grip on the "common" definition of "sign" that you are laying out for me. In the world I know, sign is singular not plural, one not two. You seem to be trying to tell me and everyone else that a sign can be two non adjoined pieces. Physically taped together to form one contiguous message, I might buy, but to allow one to mean two is a torturous use of language in my opinion.

That said, concealed may be concealed, and one may not be two, but I would never push such a fine legal point by walking past the sign(s). Yes, I would not walk past a sign that is close enough to engender a debate such as seen in this thread. To that end, Whole Foods has seen none of my business since the original post. With Costco, HEB, and a half dozen other stores within a mile of their store, they are not impeding me.

cb1000rider wrote:Abraham, where else can I eat a dozen oysters and drink draft beer while shopping for over-priced groceries? The place is unique in some ways.. :-)

You're going to drink and carry? That is not something that I or most CHL holders would do, at least I hope they would not. Carrying while under the influence of alcohol is not lawful and the amount of alcohol for impairment is undefined last I heard. How about some oysters and a non-alcoholic beverage?