TexasCHLforum.com

I would not disarm for that sign but I would take my business somewhere safer if I had the option.

This was an out patient surgical procedure that was previously booked and prepped for, so there was no way we were turning back. I left a couple of hours later out of a different entrance, and it had the same typo also.

1. Not compliant.
2. Close enough that I don't want to be a test case.

Not compliant, not my problem the property owner does not care enough to follow the law as required.
I am required to follow the laws for carrying a 100%, no mistakes, no deviations no exceptions or subject myself to huge consequences.
The State gave property owners a way, to clearly follow the law and restrict my entrance.... and the TPC (30.06) even states specifically how, and what the property owner MUST do.

I have to follow the law 100% correct, no mistakes in order to legally carry concealed...
The Property owner wishing to restrict my entry has to follow the law 100% correct, no mistakes in order to legally restrict me.

When the law changes to "Concealed carry is legal as long as you meet the intent of not doing bad things" i'll except a property owners "good intentions" to deny me access. Until then, we BOTH MUST follow the law precisely.

bronco78 wrote:Not compliant, not my problem the property owner does not care enough to follow the law as required.
I am required to follow the laws for carrying a 100%, no mistakes, no deviations no exceptions or subject myself to huge consequences.
The State gave property owners a way, to clearly follow the law and restrict my entrance.... and the TPC (30.06) even states specifically how, and what the property owner MUST do.

I have to follow the law 100% correct, no mistakes in order to legally carry concealed...
The Property owner wishing to restrict my entry has to follow the law 100% correct, no mistakes in order to legally restrict me.

When the law changes to "Concealed carry is legal as long as you meet the intent of not doing bad things" i'll except a property owners "good intentions" to deny me access. Until then, we BOTH MUST follow the law precisely.

Would you proceed on into this building displaying that sign with a concealed firearm?

harrycallahan wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:TECHNICALLY, that sign is compliant for spanish speakers, and non-compliant for english speakers. But I agree that its intent is pretty clear, and I doubt that the typo would stand up in court as a defense to prosecution, as every other letter/word on the sign is compliant.

I am not sure you're correct. To be compliant it has to fit ALL of 30.06 and that includes both English and our brothers to the south, Spanish.

Ask Crossfire. When I took my renewal class a few months ago, we covered exactly this situation. If the wording is correct in english, but not correct in spanish (which is more often the case), then the sign is compliant for english speakers, but not compliant for spanish speakers.........and visa versa....if it is correct in spanish but not in english, then it is compliant for spanish speakers but not compliant for english speakers. I don't agree with that logic, but apparently that is how the law is currently interpreted and enforced by the courts, DPS, and anybody else that has authority in the matter.

Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.

Maxwell wrote:If it's a Doctor's office or medical establishment I'd say the intend is legit, even if the sign is not. I'd err on the side of caution and not carry. I don't carry inside when I go to the Doc anyway.

I've often wondered why people get dressed up to go see someone in a professional office setting who is likely to ask them to take off their clothes?

I did carry into a Drs. office once and learned that I had to drop trou for a butt shot. I calmly handed the compact 1911 to Mrs. Oldgringo in front of the nurse and got shot. The nurse went out and came back with the Doc and nobody said nothin'. I sometimes wonder if we look for concealment problems where none exist. Another time, I lifted my shirt and my Doc saw the empty holster and asked if I had lost my gun.

Back on point, as TAM so eloquently opines, the INTENT of this sign is as clear as er,...uh...a bunch. You can bet your bippy that the arresting officer isn't aware of, nor doesn't care about, any difference between 30.03 and 30.06. YMMV, go for it, all you have to lose is a lot of money, your gun and perhaps your CHL.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:TECHNICALLY, that sign is compliant for spanish speakers, and non-compliant for english speakers. But I agree that its intent is pretty clear, and I doubt that the typo would stand up in court as a defense to prosecution, as every other letter/word on the sign is compliant.

I am not sure you're correct. To be compliant it has to fit ALL of 30.06 and that includes both English and our brothers to the south, Spanish.

Ask Crossfire. When I took my renewal class a few months ago, we covered exactly this situation. If the wording is correct in english, but not correct in spanish (which is more often the case), then the sign is compliant for english speakers, but not compliant for spanish speakers.........and visa versa....if it is correct in spanish but not in english, then it is compliant for spanish speakers but not compliant for english speakers. I don't agree with that logic, but apparently that is how the law is currently interpreted and enforced by the courts, DPS, and anybody else that has authority in the matter.

Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.

TAM, did she claim there was any on-point case law? It was my understanding that there haven't been any 30.06 prosecutions, so I would think that the applicability would still be unknown. What if you're bilingual?

Maybe Crossfire will chime in...

tomtexan wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Not compliant, not my problem the property owner does not care enough to follow the law as required.
I am required to follow the laws for carrying a 100%, no mistakes, no deviations no exceptions or subject myself to huge consequences.
The State gave property owners a way, to clearly follow the law and restrict my entrance.... and the TPC (30.06) even states specifically how, and what the property owner MUST do.

I have to follow the law 100% correct, no mistakes in order to legally carry concealed...
The Property owner wishing to restrict my entry has to follow the law 100% correct, no mistakes in order to legally restrict me.

When the law changes to "Concealed carry is legal as long as you meet the intent of not doing bad things" i'll except a property owners "good intentions" to deny me access. Until then, we BOTH MUST follow the law precisely.

Would you proceed on into this building displaying that sign with a concealed firearm?

YES I would with clear mind and heart, that property owner FAILED to follow the law as required.. I HAVE TO follow the law to carry, he HAS TO FOLLOW the law to restrict me from doing do.



I would not disrupt my plans and walk away when I noticed the non conforming sign...BUT I'd not patronize that place again.....

Oldgringo wrote:Another time, I lifted my shirt and my Doc saw the empty holster and asked if I had lost my gun.

To me the lettering also looks small not to mention the 30.03 typo... But it is a little hard to judge from just the picture.
Due to the typo I would probably not want to be a test case, but as long as I'm not the one dropping my pants/disrobing I would probably carry... However I would photograph the sign before proceeding past it just for photographic evidence(phone saves the date and time the original picture was taken based on carrier coverage date and time data)

sjfcontrol wrote:TAM, did she claim there was any on-point case law? It was my understanding that there haven't been any 30.06 prosecutions, so I would think that the applicability would still be unknown. What if you're bilingual?

Maybe Crossfire will chime in...

You know, I don't remember if she cited any case law or not. I just remember making a note of what she said because it was contrary to my previous understanding—that any sign which was incorrect in any one of its particulars was non-compliant.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:TECHNICALLY, that sign is compliant for spanish speakers, and non-compliant for english speakers. But I agree that its intent is pretty clear, and I doubt that the typo would stand up in court as a defense to prosecution, as every other letter/word on the sign is compliant.

I am not sure you're correct. To be compliant it has to fit ALL of 30.06 and that includes both English and our brothers to the south, Spanish.

Ask Crossfire. When I took my renewal class a few months ago, we covered exactly this situation. If the wording is correct in english, but not correct in spanish (which is more often the case), then the sign is compliant for english speakers, but not compliant for spanish speakers.........and visa versa....if it is correct in spanish but not in english, then it is compliant for spanish speakers but not compliant for english speakers. I don't agree with that logic, but apparently that is how the law is currently interpreted and enforced by the courts, DPS, and anybody else that has authority in the matter.

Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.

There is no Spanish text referenced in the law...and I know just enough Spanish to understand that many of the translations I've seen on valid (because they EXACTLY quote the English text) could be hard to understand. If you speak Chinese it doesn't matter, the specification for the text must be correct on the English version. The law is silent on the accuracy of the translation. This sign technically fails due to the 30.03 reference.

I think people should examine section 1.05 when they make their decisions about penal code language.

My problem with cc'ing past "non-compliant" signs is I don't trust judges to judge by the letter of the law. It seems these days judges are more apt to make decisions based on how they interpret what they perceive to be the "intent" or "spirit" of the law. Now it may very well be this is more my perception than reality - my experience with the legal system is extremely limited. I guess my perception is based on the opinions I have read in cases involving liberal judges.

If I had a lot of money to line the pockets of expensive lawyers or if I didn't have a family to support then maybe I would be less concerned. But neither of those are the case.