Incorrect Spanish on 30.06 signs?

[jeffrw]

As most of us know, a 30.06 sign has very specific language that must be shown in both English and Spanish to be valid. Legally, the English must read as follows:

• "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

The exact Spanish wording is not stated in the law, but every sign I've seen is as follows:

• "Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar portando armas de fuego) personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de portar armas), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando un arma de fuego."

Maybe someone can correct my understanding of Spanish (which is okay, not fluent), but I translate this as follows:

• "In accordance with Section 30.06 of the Penal Code (trespass carrying firearms), persons with a license under subchapter H, chapter 411, Government Code (law on carrying arms), must not enter this property carrying a firearm."

I realize I'm nitpicking, but this is a different statement. First, PC §30.06 is not titled "Trespass Carrying Firearms". The actual title is longer. Second, the Spanish translation refers only to "firearms" whereas the English refers specifically to handguns. Third, at no point does the adjective "concealed" (oculta) appear in the Spanish translation. To be in compliance, it seems the Spanish translation would have to be roughly as follows (again, feel free to correct my Spanish):

• "Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar de persona con licencia portar arma corta de fuego oculta), personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de arma corta de fuego oculta), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando una arma corta de fuego oculta."

Since the actual language on these signs does differ between English and Spanish, wouldn't that technically invalidate them? Hmm...

Regardless, I don't plan on being a "test case" for this, especially since my native language is English. All the usual disclaimers apply. (I am not a lawyer, proceed at your own risk, etc.)

[WildBill]

As most of us know, a 30.06 sign has very specific language that must be shown in both English and Spanish to be valid. Legally, the English must read as follows:

• "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

The exact Spanish wording is not stated in the law, but every sign I've seen is as follows:

• "Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar portando armas de fuego) personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de portar armas), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando un arma de fuego."

Maybe someone can correct my understanding of Spanish (which is okay, not fluent), but I translate this as follows:

• "In accordance with Section 30.06 of the Penal Code (trespass carrying firearms), persons with a license under subchapter H, chapter 411, Government Code (law on carrying arms), must not enter this property carrying a firearm."

I realize I'm nitpicking, but this is a different statement. First, PC §30.06 is not titled "Trespass Carrying Firearms". The actual title is longer. Second, the Spanish translation refers only to "firearms" whereas the English refers specifically to handguns. Third, at no point does the adjective "concealed" (oculta) appear in the Spanish translation. To be in compliance, it seems the Spanish translation would have to be roughly as follows (again, feel free to correct my Spanish):

• "Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar de persona con licencia portar arma corta de fuego oculta), personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de arma corta de fuego oculta), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando una arma corta de fuego oculta."

Since the actual language on these signs does differ between English and Spanish, wouldn't that technically invalidate them? Hmm...

Regardless, I don't plan on being a "test case" for this, especially since my native language is English. All the usual disclaimers apply. (I am not a lawyer, proceed at your own risk, etc.)

Exact translations are very difficult and sometimes impossible.
IANAL, but since the exact text of the Spanish translation is not in the Penal Code, I wouldn't be trying to nitpick translations. I believe that intent of the Spanish translation is to notify people who do not speak English so they couldn't claim that they did not receive proper notice.

[jeffrw]

Exact translations are very difficult and sometimes impossible.
IANAL, but since the exact text of the Spanish translation is not in the Penal Code, I wouldn't be trying to nitpick translations. I believe that intent of the Spanish translation is to notify people who do not speak English so they couldn't claim that they did not receive proper notice.

I agree that is the intent, but while the exact Spanish isn't specified, it must say substantially the same thing. I wonder, if the English text completely omitted the word "concealed" and replaced the word "handgun" with the more general term "firearm", would it still be compliant? I don't know, but that is exactly what the Spanish text has done.

That being said, I completely agree that carrying past the sign based on such details would be very risky/unwise. I can't imagine any LEO buying that justification, and I imagine one's chances with the judge would be pretty low, too.

[WildBill]

Exact translations are very difficult and sometimes impossible.
IANAL, but since the exact text of the Spanish translation is not in the Penal Code, I wouldn't be trying to nitpick translations. I believe that intent of the Spanish translation is to notify people who do not speak English so they couldn't claim that they did not receive proper notice.

I agree that is the intent, but while the exact Spanish isn't specified, it must say substantially the same thing. I wonder, if the English text completely omitted the word "concealed" and replaced the word "handgun" with the more general term "firearm", would it still be compliant? I don't know, but that is exactly what the Spanish text has done.

That being said, I completely agree that carrying past the sign based on such details would be very risky/unwise. I can't imagine any LEO buying that justification, and I imagine one's chances with the judge would be pretty low, too.

I know that it wouldn't work for me.

[FishInTx]

Are there spanish CHL classes? Is anyone teaching CHL in Spanish?

[Jumping Frog]

Are there spanish CHL classes? Is anyone teaching CHL in Spanish?

Of course. I seen numerous mentions here of Spanish CHL classes, as well as advertisements in the non-virtual world.

[alvins]

i ignore signs in other languages as i do anyone who speaks to me in anything other then english.

[jmra]

oculto es oculto

[MoJo]

I ran this Spanish sign language through Google Translate:

Conforme a la sección 30.06 del código penal (traspasar de persona con licencia portar arma corta de fuego oculta), personas con licencia bajo del sub-capitulo H, capitulo 411, codigo de gobierno (ley de arma corta de fuego oculta), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando una arma corta de fuego oculta

This is the translation

"Under section 30.06 of the Penal Code (transfer from person licensed handgun carry concealed firearm), persons licensed under Subchapter H of, Chapter 411, Government Code (law handgun concealed firearm), should not enter this property carrying a handgun concealed firearm."

As in any translation from one language to the other the English is awkward the message is the same.

eta: I have seen the word "la pistola" used in some translations this is what it looks like with la pistola inserted in place of "arma de fuego"

Under section 30.06 of the Penal Code (transfer from person to carry the concealed handgun license), persons licensed under Subchapter H of, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law) should not enter this property carrying the concealed handgun

[MoJo]

oculto es oculto

[Skiprr]

I agree that is the intent, but while the exact Spanish isn't specified, it must say substantially the same thing.

No, there is no requirement specified in Texas law for the Spanish translation.

The exact English wording can be found in PC §30.06(c)(3)(A).

§30.06(c)(3)(B)(i) simply says that a sign posted on the property must include "the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

There is no specific Spanish-language content mandated under the law. And note that Spanish is only required in a sign posted on a property. Any other "card or other document on which is written language" need be only in English.

[jeffrw]

I agree that is the intent, but while the exact Spanish isn't specified, it must say substantially the same thing.

No, there is no requirement specified in Texas law for the Spanish translation.

The exact English wording can be found in PC §30.06(c)(3)(A).

§30.06(c)(3)(B)(i) simply says that a sign posted on the property must include "the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

Correct, that is what the statute says. I am arguing that if the Spanish translation contains words that are clearly different in meaning (for example, by failing to specify that we are talking about concealed handguns, and instead referring to all firearms, whether or not concealed), then it really doesn't contain "the language described by Paragraph (A)" in Spanish. If not, the posted sign would be invalid.**

You are correct, however, that other forms of written communication could include just the English. In addition, the property owner (or someone acting on his/her behalf) could give oral notice, with no special wording required.

**Again, IANAL, and I would not actually advise a CHL to carry past the 30.06 sign on these grounds, because it's dicey at best whether a LEO or judge would agree with my argument, especially if English is your first language.

[Skiprr]

I agree that is the intent, but while the exact Spanish isn't specified, it must say substantially the same thing.

No. That is is incorrect.

There is no requirement specified in Texas law for the Spanish translation.

The exact English wording can be found in PC §30.06(c)(3)(A).

§30.06(c)(3)(B)(i) simply says that a sign posted on the property must include "the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

Correct, that is what the statute says. I am arguing that if the Spanish translation contains words that are clearly different in meaning (for example, by failing to specify that we are talking about concealed handguns, and instead referring to all firearms, whether or not concealed), then it really doesn't contain "the language described by Paragraph (A)" in Spanish. If not, the posted sign would be invalid.

You are mistaken.

It makes no difference whatsoever, under the law, that the Spanish translation of PC §30.06(c)(3)(A) be accurate or even approximate to the specified English text. The English text is the absolute. No Spanish text is included in the statute.

And I'll note that only a "sign" must include text in Spanish. A "a card or other document" may exclude Spanish text.

[gringo pistolero]

It makes no difference whatsoever, under the law, that the Spanish translation of PC §30.06(c)(3)(A) be accurate or even approximate to the specified English text.

I disagree. The law requires "the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish" for a sign to be valid. Different English or substantially different Spanish seems to make a sign as void as 1 centimeter letters instead of 1 inch.

[WildBill]

I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?