TexasCHLforum.com

I'm a relative newbie here. I found the very useful Texas3006.com link by lurking around the forum. On that website there are several businesses listed in the Austin area as having invalid 30.06 signs because the letter height is under 1 inch. The following comment is attached to many of those businesses' entries by a user, Chaz7138 all from around 5/1/2012.

I'll tell you what DPS Legal told us Instructors on at least 3 consecutive renewal classes. If you see the wording required by PC30.06 DON'T GO BEHIND IT even if the letters are not the right height and or the wording is not exactly correct, the intent is clear. You can be arrested & prosecuted, even if your acquitted you will spend a lot of money on lawyers!!

Is this Chaz "the" Charles from TexasCHLForum.com? Are there any other instructors that can confirm this? It would seem that if this person was in 3 consecutive classes that mentioned this that it would be a well established (and documented) policy by now.

Hopefully I'm not

Charles will have to respond for himself.

Is it possible that the lettering is too small, and you will be arrested, sure.
Its also possible the wording is wrong, and you can be arrested.

The statute says basically that if it is not correct you cannot be prosecuted, doesn't say you won't be arrested.

And as mentioned by Wgoforth, here, that is what he was told during his recent instructor's class.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51394&hilit=sign+DPS+30.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is told in instructor class is what the statue says, and what MAY happen if you pass a non-compliant 30.06 sign.

Are they legal with less than one inch letters? IMO, No. Will you be arrested if found carrying past them? Possibly. Will you beat the rap? Maybe. Since there is no case law on this, then it is totally open to interpretation until each individual incident happens.

And, I will answer and say no, Chaz is not Charles from this forum.

I can live with the idea of not going into a place that "tries" to post a 30.06. However this is due to the fact that they will likely lose my business, not because of a potential inapplicable sign issue.

That's not quite the way I understood it. Here is how I understood it.....

This is what the law says....this is what can happen

It is up to you to decide for yourself how far you are willing to push the issue. Bad news....no case law to back you up one way or the other. Good news.....there is no case law to back you up one way or the other.

As an instructor, are you willing to tell your students absolutely that they CAN or CANNOT carry? Or would it be better to tell them what the law says and then they can decide for themselves how far they are willing to push the issue

...having spoken to one legislator who helped draft 30.06, I know that their intention was that we know EXACTLY where we stand...and be able to confidently follow the letter of the law...safely...

...as often happens...there are those more bold(foolhardy) who say to ignore the law...and those more timid who say to leave a lot of leeway and don't live by the letter of the law...neither have the benefit of the protection of the law as it was intended...to give those who want to restrict our carrying a mark to hit...if they don't hit it...we get to carry...if they do go to the trouble to follow the law...we don't...

...what's going to happen to us if WE fail to live up to the letter of the law...we're punished...
...my choice is that if THEY fail to live up to the letter of the law...they get ignored...
...and before he says it: CONCEALED IS CONCEALED...that's why we don't have test cases yet...

RSJ wrote:I can live with the idea of not going into a place that "tries" to post a 30.06. However this is due to the fact that they will likely lose my business, not because of a potential inapplicable sign issue.

Agreed. In most cases for most businesses, there are enough of whatever type business it is that DON'T have a sign up, that I can bypass those that DO have a sign up. They don't like my money, fine, someone else will.

My understanding is that 30.06 was clearly specified so that the signage wouldn't have variations. Otherwise a business owner can claim a simple "gunbusters" sign is sufficient "intent", right?

OldCannon wrote:My understanding is that 30.06 was clearly specified so that the signage wouldn't have variations. Otherwise a business owner can claim a simple "gunbusters" sign is sufficient "intent", right?

...right, like a 51% sign ...the law is specific so that we know where we stand...it gives us a mark to hit...and when we hit it...we're safe...no moving the goalposts during the game...allowing any size lettering contrary to the specified size is just like writing us a ticket for doing 40 when it's posted 40 and telling us "well, we meant 30"...

speedsix wrote:...having spoken to one legislator who helped draft 30.06, I know that their intention was that we know EXACTLY where we stand...and be able to confidently follow the letter of the law...safely...

...as often happens...there are those more bold(foolhardy) who say to ignore the law...and those more timid who say to leave a lot of leeway and don't live by the letter of the law...neither have the benefit of the protection of the law as it was intended...to give those who want to restrict our carrying a mark to hit...if they don't hit it...we get to carry...if they do go to the trouble to follow the law...we don't...

...what's going to happen to us if WE fail to live up to the letter of the law...we're punished...
...my choice is that if THEY fail to live up to the letter of the law...they get ignored...
...and before he says it: CONCEALED IS CONCEALED...that's why we don't have test cases yet...

How'd you know I was gonna' say that?

speedsix wrote:

OldCannon wrote:My understanding is that 30.06 was clearly specified so that the signage wouldn't have variations. Otherwise a business owner can claim a simple "gunbusters" sign is sufficient "intent", right?

...right, like a 51% sign ...the law is specific so that we know where we stand...it gives us a mark to hit...and when we hit it...we're safe...no moving the goalposts during the game...allowing any size lettering contrary to the specified size is just like writing us a ticket for doing 40 when it's posted 40 and telling us "well, we meant 30"...

Or it was the City of Irving posting the sign on their convention center when they have no legal claim to do it.

I've thought about this a lot. It seems to me that unless you have a particularly sharp eyed LEO, the chances of catching someone who has good concealment with a gun past an invalid 30.06 is pretty close to zero. Now, if you have bad or minimal concealment, they can easily prosecute you on intentional failure to conceal and you still don't create the correct case law for the sign. It almost takes a double fault (sign + bad concealment) to get caught.

If I were going to try it, I'd carry past the Irving Convention Center sign. There, you could hope for deep pockets if you are detected and arrested. My view is that that ending (Irving is sued in civil court for incorrect signage) is pretty farfetched. It would be easier to get struck by lightning.

Oldgringo wrote:

speedsix wrote:...having spoken to one legislator who helped draft 30.06, I know that their intention was that we know EXACTLY where we stand...and be able to confidently follow the letter of the law...safely...

...as often happens...there are those more bold(foolhardy) who say to ignore the law...and those more timid who say to leave a lot of leeway and don't live by the letter of the law...neither have the benefit of the protection of the law as it was intended...to give those who want to restrict our carrying a mark to hit...if they don't hit it...we get to carry...if they do go to the trouble to follow the law...we don't...

...what's going to happen to us if WE fail to live up to the letter of the law...we're punished...
...my choice is that if THEY fail to live up to the letter of the law...they get ignored...
...and before he says it: CONCEALED IS CONCEALED...that's why we don't have test cases yet...

How'd you know I was gonna' say that?

...like sunrise and sunset...and flies at a picnic!!!

C-dub, thanks for the link to the other thread. It was quite interesting to see the back and forth. It seems ultimately that the instructor backpedaled a bit while still somewhat standing by what he said. I find it rather disheartening that the DPS instructions seem to have introduced doubt to something that seemed absolutely clear before (30.06). I guess my personal standard will be that if I see a sign saying anything about the licensed possession I will turn away. I'll assume gun busters signs are like the "blue signs".


Thanks to everyone for the responses.

jrandyw wrote:C-dub, thanks for the link to the other thread. It was quite interesting to see the back and forth. It seems ultimately that the instructor backpedaled a bit while still somewhat standing by what he said. I find it rather disheartening that the DPS instructions seem to have introduced doubt to something that seemed absolutely clear before (30.06). I guess my personal standard will be that if I see a sign saying anything about the licensed possession I will turn away. I'll assume gun busters signs are like the "blue signs".


Thanks to everyone for the responses.

Each individual has to make a choice on passing any sign. If a person puts a gunbuster sign up and you are caught carrying past it, then you MIGHT get arrested, you MIGHT get prosecuted, and you will PROBABLY win in court and then can file a civil suit for unlawful arrest.

Bottom line, the statute is clear on 30.06 signs verbiage and size and the DPS teaches that. They DO NOT teach you that you will be totally in the clear if you pass a sign of any kind and someone decides to push the issue of notification and take it through the legal system. It could happen and the DPS folks let you know that. It is what you should relay to your students that there are those anti's out there that may push the envelope so you may not be 100% in telling them they are 'good to go' past any non-compliant sign.