Does this meet the legal requirements ?

[JP171]

Steve, Keith and Jbarn and anyone else that is saying the sign has to be conspicuous not just seen, you really are saying the same thing if a sign is conspicuous it should be easily seen as Webster's dictionary defines Conspicuous as the following.

con·spic·u·ous adjective \kən-ˈspi-kyə-wəs, -kyü-əs\

: very easy to see or notice
: attracting attention by being great or impressive
Full Definition of CONSPICUOUS


1: obvious to the eye or mind <conspicuous changes>
2: attracting attention : striking <a conspicuous success>
3: marked by a noticeable violation of good taste

So if he didn't see the sign it wasn't conspicuous no matter the wording used it all means the same thing

I do agree however that the standard is " A reasonable person with the same or similar training in the same or similar situation", the preceding has been used by almost every state and federal authority as the main standard to determine reasonableness for EMS, Security and many other job skills and will never be not used. It is in fact based on the premise of what would someone else do in your situation if they had the same knowledge you have, the bad part is that its nothing more than a guessing game of what if because no one knows how they will react to a given situation until it happens, just like in combat or crisis

[Jumping Frog]

So if he didn't see the sign it wasn't conspicuous no matter the wording used it all means the same thing

There are all kinds of counterexamples one could think of. For example, a sign on the wall beside the door has someone standing in front of it when you walked up to the door. The sign was on the door, but someone was standing there holding the door open. Or the sign was right in front of a person's nose, but the person is walking deeply distracted and worried about their wife dying of cancer and doesn't notice.

The sign can be displayed in a conspicuous manner and the person can simply not see it.

[slotsavegas]

Can anyone tell me how to attach the two photo's ????

A picture would certainly be worth a lot more than speculation.

[ScottDLS]

The statute defines "notice". It is very specific. And then it requires that the person "received notice" and continued to remain on the property/premises to be guilty of the offense. If someone is to be prosecuted, presumably one needs to be proven to have committed the acts proscribed, "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is a relatively major criminal offense (Class A misdemeanor), and thus deserves this protection. If I inadvertently pass a 30.06 notice, whether properly or much more likely IMPROPERLY posted, that would be my defense. I don't seek to break the law, I always seek to comply with it. In the very unlikely situation that I was discovered carrying concealed, my defense would be that I had not received notice. i.e. the truth would be my defense. That's all we can do. There are undoubtedly people convicted who are not guilty, however I still believe that it is relatively rare and will conduct my affairs in view of that...

-Scott

[Keith B]

Can anyone tell me how to attach the two photo's ????

A picture would certainly be worth a lot more than speculation.

There are two methods.

1. You can host the photo out on a photo site link Flickr or PhotoBucket. Then copy the link from the photo on the site, click on the Img button at the top of the post window, and then paste the link between the boxes.

2. Add the file directly in the post by using the box below the post window. Click the browse button and select the file you want to attach, then click 'Add the file' button.

[slotsavegas]

OK.

Hopefully I have figured out how to add the pics

The one showing the front of the building has the sign to the left of the far left door.
(photo is cropped a bit and hard to tell but the right edge of the sign is just visible)
The actual entrance is to the right of that door and is an automatic double door.
As I said earlier, this is an entrance that can be accessed from the left, or from the
right side of the building. (from the rear of the vehicle shown).

Hope this clears up the issue.

Original questions still are....

Does the wording of the sign constitute a legal notification ?
And, Is it properly located at the entrance to meet legal requirements ?

Thanks for everyones help.

[jimlongley]

49-2.png

47-2.png

OK.

Hopefully I have figured out how to add the pics

The one showing the front of the building has the sign to the left of the far left door.
(photo is cropped a bit and hard to tell but the right edge of the sign is just visible)
The actual entrance is to the right of that door and is an automatic double door.
As I said earlier, this is an entrance that can be accessed from the left, or from the
right side of the building. (from the rear of the vehicle shown).

Hope this clears up the issue.

Original questions still are....

Does the wording of the sign constitute a legal notification ?
And, Is it properly located at the entrance to meet legal requirements ?

Thanks for everyones help.

That is the old sign, and does not meet the statutory requirements.

[sjfcontrol]

That is the old sign, and does not meet the statutory requirements.

I thought the old sign was identical to the current, but instead of "Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" it had the reference to 4413(29ee).
(Such as the one at Grapevine Mills Mall. Attached below.)

The sign in the picture isn't even close to that!

[sugar land dave]

Just a quick proviso. If the building you have shown is a teaching hospital, it is of limits by statute regardless of sign.

[slotsavegas]

Just a quick proviso. If the building you have shown is a teaching hospital, it is of limits by statute regardless of sign.

I believe you have "hit the nail on the head" It is on a medical physical therapy building and as such probably is a medical facility.

I was not aware medical facilities were exempted from required 30.06 postings.
Somehow I missed that during the instructor training class and readings of the handbook.

[sjfcontrol]

Medical facilities are only off-limits if they are 30.06 posted.

If they are a teaching facility, that muddies the waters.

[srothstein]

JP171,

Unless I misunderstand your post, I think we are all in agreement (well, you, me, and the others you mentioned) on the difference between the sign being posted being enough and the sign actually having been seen. The law says the sign must be conspicuously posted and the court will use the reasonable man test. But, if you did not see the sign because you were distracted or sleepy or some similar reason, you will be found guilty if the reasonable man would have seen the sign.


Sugar Land Dave (and others concerned with teaching hospitals),

I just wanted to point out that this is just conventional wisdom and not the law. The law does not mention a teaching hospital as off-limits other than as a hospital. The legal problem is that the law does not adequately define what is a school. Is a teaching hospital a school or not under the law? In this forum, we cannot all agree on exactly what is a school. I think most administrators of a teaching hospital would claim it as a school, for several reasons (taxes and guns being just two). I also am confident that most of us would not see most teaching hospitals as schools, unless they were directly affiliated with the university that ran them.

One confusing example might be the VA hospital in San Antonio. Last time i was down in that area, the University of Texas had an agreement with the county hospital system to use the county hospital for part of its teaching duties. They even renamed the hospital to University Hospital (though it is owned and operated by the county). But the hospital also had an agreement with the VA hospital across the street to jointly provide services. There was even a tunnel under the street to connect the two hospitals. Many of the student doctors and nurses pulled shifts in the VA hospital. I don't think any court would consider the VA hospital a school, and I am not even sure they would the county hospital, despite its name. But I would not want to bet on it and I would stay clear of the VA hospital since it is federal anyway.

[sjfcontrol]

JP171,

Unless I misunderstand your post, I think we are all in agreement (well, you, me, and the others you mentioned) on the difference between the sign being posted being enough and the sign actually having been seen. The law says the sign must be conspicuously posted and the court will use the reasonable man test. But, if you did not see the sign because you were distracted or sleepy or some similar reason, you will be found guilty if the reasonable man would have seen the sign.


Sugar Land Dave (and others concerned with teaching hospitals),

I just wanted to point out that this is just conventional wisdom and not the law. The law does not mention a teaching hospital as off-limits other than as a hospital. The legal problem is that the law does not adequately define what is a school. Is a teaching hospital a school or not under the law? In this forum, we cannot all agree on exactly what is a school. I think most administrators of a teaching hospital would claim it as a school, for several reasons (taxes and guns being just two). I also am confident that most of us would not see most teaching hospitals as schools, unless they were directly affiliated with the university that ran them.

One confusing example might be the VA hospital in San Antonio. Last time i was down in that area, the University of Texas had an agreement with the county hospital system to use the county hospital for part of its teaching duties. They even renamed the hospital to University Hospital (though it is owned and operated by the county). But the hospital also had an agreement with the VA hospital across the street to jointly provide services. There was even a tunnel under the street to connect the two hospitals. Many of the student doctors and nurses pulled shifts in the VA hospital. I don't think any court would consider the VA hospital a school, and I am not even sure they would the county hospital, despite its name. But I would not want to bet on it and I would stay clear of the VA hospital since it is federal anyway.

Far more eloquent, but as I said, muddies the waters!

[JP171]

JP171,

Unless I misunderstand your post, I think we are all in agreement (well, you, me, and the others you mentioned) on the difference between the sign being posted being enough and the sign actually having been seen. The law says the sign must be conspicuously posted and the court will use the reasonable man test. But, if you did not see the sign because you were distracted or sleepy or some similar reason, you will be found guilty if the reasonable man would have seen the sign.


Sugar Land Dave (and others concerned with teaching hospitals),

I just wanted to point out that this is just conventional wisdom and not the law. The law does not mention a teaching hospital as off-limits other than as a hospital. The legal problem is that the law does not adequately define what is a school. Is a teaching hospital a school or not under the law? In this forum, we cannot all agree on exactly what is a school. I think most administrators of a teaching hospital would claim it as a school, for several reasons (taxes and guns being just two). I also am confident that most of us would not see most teaching hospitals as schools, unless they were directly affiliated with the university that ran them.

One confusing example might be the VA hospital in San Antonio. Last time i was down in that area, the University of Texas had an agreement with the county hospital system to use the county hospital for part of its teaching duties. They even renamed the hospital to University Hospital (though it is owned and operated by the county). But the hospital also had an agreement with the VA hospital across the street to jointly provide services. There was even a tunnel under the street to connect the two hospitals. Many of the student doctors and nurses pulled shifts in the VA hospital. I don't think any court would consider the VA hospital a school, and I am not even sure they would the county hospital, despite its name. But I would not want to bet on it and I would stay clear of the VA hospital since it is federal anyway.

Steve,
I think we are probably on the same page as far as conspicuous, but my interpretation is probably a little more broad than yours as I think not seeing it because it was blocked makes in not conspicuous enough and being tired/sleepy also does the same. I tend to believe that if it can be hidden by casual leaning to keep the door up or the wall up it is suspect in its intent to create a violation by the mere fact of placement or coloration that does not draw the attention easily.

As far as teaching hospitals I do not think that they meet the common definition of a school and therefore are never automatically off limits. Think of it like this A teaching hospital normally has no classrooms as we define them commonly, baby docs do medical work as a Doctor and not just observe and take notes, they do in fact do differential diagnoses under the supervision of a licensed MD. Most teaching hospitals are not part of a school but under a contractual agreement to provide MD's to complete the baby docs education for clinical experience. almost all hospitals have interns and interns are still considered a student even though most have taken and passed the medical examiners board for GP MD's I spent the equivalent of 1 year as a intern/resident during my time becoming a paramedic with advanced skills for sutures/ field expedient surgical and ATLS. I did clinical rotations at several hospitals here in Texas including Ben Taub, Hermann and UTMB as well as a couple in Florida, some of them were teaching hospitals but none are considered schools