jimlongley wrote:
I think the law needs to be amended to put some teeth behind it, at a very minimum (do you know how hard that word is to type?) the law should specifically state that a sign not meeting the minimum standard will be considered not to be adequate notification under the law and will not apply, just the way hospitals, etc., have been required to properly post. And the amendment should include specific wording that makes it clear that white on clear is NOT contrasting, that a separate and independent sign, not lettering on glass, is necessary, and that the sign must, MUST, be visible within certain sight lines, and if it is not or there is no convenient location to post a single compliant sign, then more than one must be posted, and that EVERY entrance, not just the main one, MUST be posted.
While I agree with the majority of your post, I disagree that the 30.06 statute needs to be rewritten to "specifically state that a sign not meeting the minimum standard will be considered to not be adequate notification."
BIG DISCLAIMER -- Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
The statute already clearly states that in order to be considered effective notice the sign must meet the specific criteria outlined. By definition, that means that if the sign does not meet those criteria, it is not effective notice. It's like saying that, "The minimum passing score for this exam is a 70 out of 100." That's all that is required. You don't need to follow it up by stating... "Any score lower than 70 out of 100 will not be considered a passing score."
I would like to see the ambiguous areas of the sign requirements (contrast, posted at all entrances, definition of conspicuous, etc...) more clearly spelled out. But there is no need to restate that a sign that does not meet the requirements is not valid.
If the lettering is too small, the sign is not valid. If it is not posted in both English and Spanish, it is not valid. In my opinion, if someone will walk past a gun-busters sign, then I don't understand why they would not walk past a non-compliant attempt at a 30.06 sign. In both cases, the intent is clear (they don't want you to carry in their establishment). In both cases, they failed to meet the legal requirements that would remove your right to carry. (Why have requirements if they don't need to be met.... those are called guidelines.)
A lot of people here say things like "I will not consent to a search of my vehicle if a LEO asks if he can search it." Why? Because they don't want to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches just because someone (the LEO) asked them to. Why then would we give up our right to carry our weapon just because someone (the sign poster) asked us to? The LEO can get a warrant (or come up with probable cause, etc...). The building owner can post a compliant sign. Until that happens... they are just asking.
Again... my opinions only - not legal advice - you know the drill.
NRA Endowment Member. Texas LTC Instructor. NRA certified Pistol & Home Firearm Safety Instructor - Range Safety Officer
Any comments about legal matters are general in nature and are not legal advice. Nothing posted on this forum is intended to establish an attorney-client relationship.