would you ignore this sign (30.03 vs. 30.06)

[Ericstac]

I would carry. Even if there was concern over that sign the only way I'm getting caught is if I pull my CONCEALED gun... And if I have to pull it then the situation was life threatening and any sign won't matter at that point.

[dac1842]

who is willing to spend 10's of thousands to be the test case? I would honor the sign

[dac1842]

I know many on here disagree with me on this point, but I feel that given the wrong DA, wrong Judge or Jury someone carrying past any sign that indicates the intent of the owner is not have guns on their premises will be in a world of hurt. I know the law states specific language and size and all that, but I also know our screwy court system. Given the perfect storm, it could be a challenge.
It will be interesting with a new DA coming to Harris County in January to see how that attitude in Harris County changes. Pat Lykos has not been 2A friendly and has had a very strict interpretation of things. Mike Anderson should be a breath of fresh air for CHL and Castle Doctrine supporters.

[Ericstac]

I can't wait for Anderson to take office.

[RoyGBiv]

If I was the patient, with a chance of having to disrobe... No carry past that sign.
If I'm just a chauffeur, I'd carry past it. IMHO the sign is not compliant. Concealed means concealed.

[Crossfire]

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.

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.

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.

Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.

As we have said before, there is no case law on 30.06. So, anything we say here is only opinion - not actual fact. The sign we had as example in your renewal class was one in which the spanish translation was so poor as to not even make sense. So I would say, in that case, that a person who spoke only spanish would not have received effective notice. Don't get me started on the validity of a CHL for a person who does not speak english well enough to understand a 30.06 sign. That is another thread for another day.

Anyways... carry on. As before, it is all opinion at this point.

[tbrown]

who is willing to spend 10's of thousands to be the test case? I would honor the sign

I ignore signs that don't meet the clear requirements in the law. If I was worried about being a "test case" because some incompetent doesn't know the law, or because some jerk will intentionally ignore the law, I would be afraid to carry off my own property at all.

[JALLEN]

....... 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.

Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.

The statute says what it says. Trial court judges interpret those words, each for themselves, unless there is an appellate decision interpreting the statute, which is binding on the trial courts in that appellate district (I don't know how appeals courts are organized in Texas, sorry!). An appellate interpretation doesn't bind, but is often persuasive, trial courts in other appellate districts, as well as trial court interpretations which are persuasive only on other trial courts. A state Supreme court interpretation is binding upon all the lower state courts, of course.

Might anyone know if there are any Supreme Court or appellate court interpretations we can learn from?

[E.Marquez]

who is willing to spend 10's of thousands to be the test case? I would honor the sign

I ignore signs that don't meet the clear requirements in the law. If I was worried about being a "test case" because some incompetent doesn't know the law, or because some jerk will intentionally ignore the law, I would be afraid to carry off my own property at all.

[Oldgringo]

It looks like we might get our test case before long. Go get 'em, Buckaroos!

[TexasCajun]

Might beat the wrap, but not before taking the ride....

[MasterOfNone]

Now imagine Eric Holder as DA and Sotomayor as Judge with an Austin jury. What are the odds of the exact letter of the law being upheld?

[jmra]

With Oldgringo, TexasCajun, and MasterOfNone.

[Jaguar]

Now imagine Eric Holder as DA and Sotomayor as Judge with an Austin jury. What are the odds of the exact letter of the law being upheld?

OMG, you just shattered all faith I've ever had in our legal system.

[E.Marquez]

Wolves and Sheep, Leaf eaters and Meat eaters....

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
-Alexander Hamilton

"They" insist we follow the law specifically....or else.....

Some of the "we" suggest we ignore the law and just give in, because it's "safer"

To each his own.....but I'll never understand that sort of person, or how they came to the position of submission.