The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
The sign has no bearing if it is on city owned property. If there is a sign there you have a defense for carrying a concealed handgun if you have a CHL. You can legally carry even if there is a sign.JohnKSa wrote:If I rent or lease a building on govt. property for the purpose of a business, does the law actually prevent me from posting a 30-06 sign that carries the weight of law?
My understanding to now has been that the business owner has the right to post the sign regardless of who actually owns the building as long as he has leased or rented rights to the building. Are we really saying that is not the case? That a person renting a building from the govt. can not post the sign?
We'll see if thats true. Everybody just wait for the "official" word. You all know its coming.Liberty wrote:The sign has no bearing if it is on city owned property. If there is a sign there you have a defense for carrying a concealed handgun if you have a CHL. You can legally carry even if there is a sign.JohnKSa wrote:If I rent or lease a building on govt. property for the purpose of a business, does the law actually prevent me from posting a 30-06 sign that carries the weight of law?
My understanding to now has been that the business owner has the right to post the sign regardless of who actually owns the building as long as he has leased or rented rights to the building. Are we really saying that is not the case? That a person renting a building from the govt. can not post the sign?
They can also post a sign that says "No Dumb People Allowed". That sign is also meaningless. But there is nothing stopping the leasee from putting up any sign they want.
Not sure what day, but it was the week after Thanksgiving. My wanted to see that darn Van Gogh thing also. The letters were probably the right height, but the sign was in the lower right corner of the north entrance. I was caught off guard and had to go back to the car to drop off Colt Defender I was carrying.nitrogen wrote:I don' t think it's a legal sign. it's not contrasting, and I don't believe the letters are large enough. (I can't tell from the photo)
When was this taken? I didn't see this when I went.
It was a warm day.casselthief wrote:more importantly, what're you doing wearing shorts and sandals in this weather?!?!?!?!!
I think you're trying to get a little technical on the validity of the sign it's self. I think white on a dark background is contrasting.
good luck on winning that fight.
Contrasting nothing!!! I'm pretty sure clear glass is not a contrasting color.casselthief wrote:I think you're trying to get a little technical on the validity of the sign it's self. I think white on a dark background is contrasting.
good luck on winning that fight.
All the other 30.06 signs have seen have been the white stenciled letters on glass. In my mind, this served as legal noticed and I complied. There probably are other entrances, but if you pay to park in their parking garage, you would almost certainly use the north entrance, which is where I took the picture.kauboy wrote:Contrasting nothing!!! I'm pretty sure clear glass is not a contrasting color.casselthief wrote:I think you're trying to get a little technical on the validity of the sign it's self. I think white on a dark background is contrasting.
good luck on winning that fight.
Anyways, were the other entrances posted? Well, first I should ask if there are other entrances.
I believe the letter size requirement is meant. How are they not block letters? The sign was at the main entrance on the front door. It was just not at eye level. It was also only on one door, but there were several other doors.kauboy wrote:Negative!
Penal code states:
a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
Letter (ii) says they must be block letters and they ALL must be 1" in height. Regardless of whether you think it's contrasting, it still doesn't meet this req.
Also, letter (iii) says that it must be displayed in a "conspicuous manner". That means that it muse "attract special attention, as by outstanding qualities or eccentricities" to comply. Does this sign? No.
My opinion: Not legal.
Block letters are all capitalized and all the same height (same width too, I think). The museum tried to use some fancy script to keep it appealing. The law is specific. It may look ugly in the end, but if you wish to restrict, that's what you have to deal with.lcarreau wrote:How are they not block letters?