Is this sign 3006/3007 sign legal

[FL450]

At my Gastroenterologist office in Houston by Ellington.
They have 1 sign listing 3006 and 3007 in same sentence rather than the seperate signs for each. Other than that all appears to be legal.
Is it acceptable to post both 3006 and 3007 on the same sign since this does not follow the exact wording required by the state?
If not I still dont want to take the ride even though I would beat the rap.
http://s891.photobucket.com/user/drfbgg ... sort=1&o=0

[brewdawg]

IANAL, but my reading of the law would indicate that the sign is not valid. The law specifies the wording required on the sign for each section of the law.

[goose]

IANAL, but IMO, not a sign that carries the force of law.

BUT, i love that photobucket will help me make this a Christmas greeting card.

[Soccerdad1995]

The sign is not illegal and also has no force of law. It is not illegal for them to post this sign unless this is government owned or leased property. You also would not be breaking any laws if you carried past this sign.

You can never guarantee that you won't take a ride, regardless of what you are or are not doing. Police are human and they sometimes make mistakes. The only way to be certain of never "taking a ride" is by locking yourself in your house and never leaving. But is an officer was to arrest you and take you to jail they would be wrong.

Heck even if the sign was valid, an officer probably wouldn't arrest you and take you to jail for a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $200. So I would say that you are highly unlikely to ever "take a ride". If you want to be extra safe, then carry concealed. Each and every one of the following things would all need to happen for you to "take a ride" in that case. You can decide the likelihood of all of them happening:

- Someone notices your concealed weapon

- That person believes it is a weapon and not something else creating a bulge under your shirt

- That person has a problem with you having a concealed weapon

- That person reports it to management

- Management decides that you have committed a crime (this one by itself is pretty likely)

- Management decides to call the police without talking to you first

- The police officer responds before you leave

- The police officer knows that it is illegal for a LTC holder to carry a handgun at places with signs, but does not know what those signs are supposed to say

- Regardless of not knowing the required wording for signs, the officer either thinks that any sign is legally enforceable, or maybe that any sign that references a code section is legally enforceable

- The officer decides to make an arrest for what he/she incorrectly believes to be a Class C misdemeanor

Given the gross negligence that would be needed for an officer to be this ignorant and yet still make an arrest, you might have a civil action after the officer's supervisor finishes training him/her.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Not illegal, however no force of law. If they ask you to leave then that does have force of law (verbal notice). Open carrying would definitely get you a "please leave", concealed carry would if anyone ever saw it and then you'd have to leave when given verbal notice.

Not a lawyer here either.

[The Annoyed Man]

It's important to remember that there is no law against posting a non-compliant sign....... so non-compliant signs are not "illegal". However, non-compliant signs have no force of law on someone carrying under authority of their CHL/LTC. But that said, it is fairly certain that if you open-carried into that building, you'd receive effective verbal notice, which would keep you from ever carrying in there again........whereas if you concealed and just kept your mouth shut, you'd be good to go.

[C-dub]

And please do not inform them that is not effective notice.

[rtschl]

And please do not inform them that is not effective notice.

[lildave40]

And please do not inform them that is not effective notice.

[RoyGBiv]

I'll play devils advocate...

Q: What words are missing from that sign?
A: "concealed handgun law" (30.06)

I could argue that the referenced sign meets 30.07, but not 30.06.

30.06

(3) “Written communication” means:
<Text of (c)(3)(A) effective until Jan. 1, 2016>

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following:  “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”

30.07

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; or

[rotor]

The word "WITH" is spelled "WTH". Somebody spent some money on a worthless sign. I guess the gunbuster part is legitimate. I don't know why you even asked if this was legitimate though as it is so obviously not.
A great site for imbedding a picture in a post is
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/201 ... pload.html
Very nice easy way.

PS, don't tell them their sign is not legit.

[goose]

I'll play devils advocate...

Q: What words are missing from that sign?
A: "concealed handgun law" (30.06)

I could argue that the referenced sign meets 30.07, but not 30.06.

30.07

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; or

<I changed the emphasis in my quote of your post>

Identical would be the key word. The posted image isn't identical to either. Splitting hairs maybe, but I think arguing that the legislature didn't mean identical when they wrote identical would be a tougher sale. I wouldn't OC there but I don't see how it could carry the force of law.

[jmorris]

At my Gastroenterologist office in Houston by Ellington.
They have 1 sign listing 3006 and 3007 in same sentence rather than the seperate signs for each. Other than that all appears to be legal.
Is it acceptable to post both 3006 and 3007 on the same sign since this does not follow the exact wording required by the state?
If not I still dont want to take the ride even though I would beat the rap.
http://s891.photobucket.com/user/drfbgg ... sort=1&o=0

This is very close if not a match to the signs Security Service credit union and at least one other place I've seen has posted. I wonder if someone is selling this sign. Couldn't find anyone online but interestingly I found an agenda for the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles that contains that wording. Then I found that it seems that ALL the sub-agencies of the DMV have this as a boilerplate. Perhaps someone from these companies have attended a DMV meeting and got the idea there. Example below.

http://www.txdmv.gov/publications-tac/d ... ebook-apr7

IMHO this is non-compliant also.

[ScottDLS]

The sign is not illegal and also has no force of law. It is not illegal for them to post this sign unless this is government owned or leased property. You also would not be breaking any laws if you carried past this sign.

You can never guarantee that you won't take a ride, regardless of what you are or are not doing. Police are human and they sometimes make mistakes. The only way to be certain of never "taking a ride" is by locking yourself in your house and never leaving. But is an officer was to arrest you and take you to jail they would be wrong.

Heck even if the sign was valid, an officer probably wouldn't arrest you and take you to jail for a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $200. So I would say that you are highly unlikely to ever "take a ride". If you want to be extra safe, then carry concealed. Each and every one of the following things would all need to happen for you to "take a ride" in that case. You can decide the likelihood of all of them happening:

- Someone notices your concealed weapon

- That person believes it is a weapon and not something else creating a bulge under your shirt

- That person has a problem with you having a concealed weapon

- That person reports it to management

- Management decides that you have committed a crime (this one by itself is pretty likely)

- Management decides to call the police without talking to you first

- The police officer responds before you leave

- The police officer knows that it is illegal for a LTC holder to carry a handgun at places with signs, but does not know what those signs are supposed to say

- Regardless of not knowing the required wording for signs, the officer either thinks that any sign is legally enforceable, or maybe that any sign that references a code section is legally enforceable

- The officer decides to make an arrest for what he/she incorrectly believes to be a Class C misdemeanor

Given the gross negligence that would be needed for an officer to be this ignorant and yet still make an arrest, you might have a civil action after the officer's supervisor finishes training him/her.

Every time I see these threads, I just have a vision of the guy from Fantasy Island TV Show (1970's), Herve Villechaize....yelling "Hey Boss, the RIDE, the RIDE" .

[Soccerdad1995]

The sign is not illegal and also has no force of law. It is not illegal for them to post this sign unless this is government owned or leased property. You also would not be breaking any laws if you carried past this sign.

You can never guarantee that you won't take a ride, regardless of what you are or are not doing. Police are human and they sometimes make mistakes. The only way to be certain of never "taking a ride" is by locking yourself in your house and never leaving. But is an officer was to arrest you and take you to jail they would be wrong.

Heck even if the sign was valid, an officer probably wouldn't arrest you and take you to jail for a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $200. So I would say that you are highly unlikely to ever "take a ride". If you want to be extra safe, then carry concealed. Each and every one of the following things would all need to happen for you to "take a ride" in that case. You can decide the likelihood of all of them happening:

- Someone notices your concealed weapon

- That person believes it is a weapon and not something else creating a bulge under your shirt

- That person has a problem with you having a concealed weapon

- That person reports it to management

- Management decides that you have committed a crime (this one by itself is pretty likely)

- Management decides to call the police without talking to you first

- The police officer responds before you leave

- The police officer knows that it is illegal for a LTC holder to carry a handgun at places with signs, but does not know what those signs are supposed to say

- Regardless of not knowing the required wording for signs, the officer either thinks that any sign is legally enforceable, or maybe that any sign that references a code section is legally enforceable

- The officer decides to make an arrest for what he/she incorrectly believes to be a Class C misdemeanor

Given the gross negligence that would be needed for an officer to be this ignorant and yet still make an arrest, you might have a civil action after the officer's supervisor finishes training him/her.

Every time I see these threads, I just have a vision of the guy from Fantasy Island TV Show (1970's), Herve Villechaize....yelling "Hey Boss, the RIDE, the RIDE" .

It's hard enough for me to keep all of the laws straight without also worrying about getting cited / arrested for things that are not illegal.