TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

WildBill wrote:
In this instance, I believe that "transparent" is a color. The reason I say this is because black lettering on a piece of white paper would be a valid sign. A person could argue that black is the absence of color, so the sign is not valid. I don't think he would win.

I completely understand what you are saying about a judge "looking for a way to convict." A perfect example is the recent post about the fellow who got convicted of having a "switchblade." Sometimes the facts get in the way of the argument.

Black being the absence of color only applies to light, in pigments, which printing is, black is the presence of all colors.

Transparent can not be considered a color in any artistic or lighting sense, as it passes on the color behind it, and if it were truly the absence of color, it would be black, which is beginning to get circular.

As Chas notes, bad case law might result, but in the absence of a test case we all have to decide for ourselves, and I think a good case could be made that white letters on glass do not constitute contrast. I have a couple of color blind friends who would agree.

By definition, the fact that you can differentiate between white letters and the glass background means that there is contrast.

I am starting to beat a dead horse. [If I see it] I will obey a 30.06 sign with letters on a glass door. I don't want or need my name in a law case book as a citation.

I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as "illegal 30.06 signs" as stated in the subject line.

There are invalid 30.06 signs. Unenforceable 30.06 signs. But it is not illegal to post them.

WildBill wrote:By definition, the fact that you can differentiate between white letters and the glass background means that there is contrast.

Yes, but you can't always, as in the example of the white floor behind the glass door with white letters on it, the only time there would be contrast would be if the background lent it. When I worked at Dallas Love Field I used to love to point out one of the doors with the (invalid 30.05) posting on it, that was backed by another outside door on the other side of a corridor. Under most lighting conditions a person approaching the door would not be able to tell there was a sign on the door, much less what it said.

I had a terrible time getting this picture of it because it was hard to get the sign against a background that did contrast. I had to get very close and at an angle and have the door open to get the shot, a person approaching the door would hardly be aware of the sign and once the door slid to the side the sign would be occluded by a lobby sign on a stanchion in front of it. I can't find the head on shot I took for comparison, it would make the difference very obvious.


By jimlongley, shot with FinePix4900ZOOM at 2006-07-27

WildBill wrote:I am starting to beat a dead horse. [If I see it] I will obey a 30.06 sign with letters on a glass door. I don't want or need my name in a law case book as a citation.

Yes, me too.

jimlongley wrote:I had a terrible time getting this picture of it because it was hard to get the sign against a background that did contrast. I had to get very close and at an angle and have the door open to get the shot, a person approaching the door would hardly be aware of the sign and once the door slid to the side the sign would be occluded by a lobby sign on a stanchion in front of it. I can't find the head on shot I took for comparison, it would make the difference very obvious.

Good picture, but if you showed that one to a jury, they would convict you!

WildBill wrote:Good picture, but if you showed that one to a jury, they would convict you!

Of what?

bdickens wrote:

WildBill wrote:Good picture, but if you showed that one to a jury, they would convict you!

Of what?

Posting an illegal 30.06 sign.

KBCraig wrote:I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as "illegal 30.06 signs" as stated in the subject line.

There are invalid 30.06 signs. Unenforceable 30.06 signs. But it is not illegal to post them.

It needs to be.

Anygunanywhere

WildBill wrote:

srothstein wrote:The non-compliance in some areas is gray and not clear, such as if solid letters on a clear glass background constitutes contrasting colors.

Can someone explain this to me?

I hate to quote Wikipedia as a reference, but their definition of contrast as it relates to vision seems to be accurate:

"Contrast is the difference in visual properties that makes an object distinguishable from other objects and the background. In visual perception of the real world, contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view."

The intent of the term "contrasting colors" in 30.06 is to make the sign easy to notice and easy to read. IMO a sign with opaque letters on clear glass is easy to notice and read. The letters are clearly distinguishable from the background. It think the sign meets the intent and the letter of the law.

The intent for requiring block letters one inch in height is also to make the sign easy to notice and easy to read. Whether or not 7/8" block letters will get you arrested and convicted is up to the LEO, DA, judge and jury.

Years ago, I used to work downtown in Houston...I was cross corner from the HPD HQ building...They posted a properly worded, and sized 30.06 sign on the clear "glass" panel next to the main entrance...It was difficult to discern what it said unless you walked right up to it and tried to read it...But once you did that, well, you know the rest of the story...

The floor and wall behind the glass fa'cade was light in color so you couldn't really tell what was being displayed...

I made a point about it , and I believe the sign was removed and some other sort of procedure was implemented at that facility...I never noticed it much afterwards because I had no futher business needing to be conducted there...

But like I've always said...Posting the 30.06 sign implies intent, so unless the sky is falling, and the world is coming to an end...Well, when I put it that way...We have bigger problems to deal with...

I know...I am such a negative nancy...

anygunanywhere wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as "illegal 30.06 signs" as stated in the subject line.

There are invalid 30.06 signs. Unenforceable 30.06 signs. But it is not illegal to post them.

It needs to be.

Anygunanywhere

Ditto...The tables need to be turned and an equal proportion of jeopardy needs to be installed for those wishing to restrict us...

If they want to post...Fine...But you better do it right, per the law...And it needs to be vigorously enforced...

anygunanywhere wrote:

KBCraig wrote:There are invalid 30.06 signs. Unenforceable 30.06 signs. But it is not illegal to post them.

It needs to be.

If we're speaking of those government facilities that post proper (but invalid and unenforceable) 30.06 notices, then I agree: the person who does so should be prosecuted for civil rights violations.

As for anyone else, private property is private. They can post a proper notice, or be ignored.

mr.72 wrote: My policy is:
1. don't go into a place with a legitimate 30.06 sign unless I have to, and in which case go in unarmed
2. only carry into an improperly posted place with caution
3. wherever I am, don't get made

I don't like to disarm in the car because you are forced to unconceal while disarming, and I also don't like having to handle a firearm in a public place (like a parking lot) unnecessarily because regardless of how unlikely an AD is, the odds are higher if you are handling the gun than they are if you are not.

I think this is a very good policy to have. I dislike unarming in my truck, with wandering eyes all around, and like mr.72 said an AD can happen. Therefore, I will not enter any establishment with a 30.06 sign, unless I just absolutely have to, other wise I will just take my business elsewhere. To be honest I have only seen one 30.06 sign since I have had my CHL and that was at the UPS customer service desk.

-geo