TexasCHLforum.com

o b juan wrote:I sometimes wonder if some folks have nothing more to do than challenge.

Well, the Dallas Zoo posted because they meet the definition of "amusement park". That being the case, the Webster (foremost authority on the English language) definition of "block letters" should also hold, since the legislature did not set forth its own definition of the term. What's good for the goose and all that....

Bryanmc wrote:

o b juan wrote:I sometimes wonder if some folks have nothing more to do than challenge.

Well, the Dallas Zoo posted because they meet the definition of "amusement park". That being the case, the Webster (foremost authority on the English language) definition of "block letters" should also hold, since the legislature did not set forth its own definition of the term. What's good for the goose and all that....

Exactly. Criminals and even our own government try to skirt the law on technicalities. Why should we be any different?

My company had signs printed on metal with the company logo. Made a frame out of treated 4x4 posts and put them in the ground after painting them. After all that effort, the signs may not even be enforceable. Even though handbook restricts my carrying, I can at least laugh to myself at their stupidity. I will not tell them either.

So far from this thread I have learned that all letters must be 1" tall, 25.4mm for the Spanish lettering, whizzbang and whirlado fonts are not valid, 63/64 is still smaller than an inch, and most of us, myself included, still have a junior high sense of humor.

jason812 wrote:
Exactly. Criminals and even our own government try to skirt the law on technicalities. Why should we be any different?

Because we are better than that and hold ourselves to a higher standard.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

jason812 wrote:
Exactly. Criminals and even our own government try to skirt the law on technicalities. Why should we be any different?

Because we are better than that and hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Exactly, we hold ourselves to the standard of obeying the law as it was written....

It doesn't say "at least 63/64th's of an inch, or in cursive letters or wingding font, or posted in the executive bathroom in company HQ in NYC". So when we come across a sign that doesn't meet the requirements of the law, we ignore it.

This question has been around the block (no pun intended) though I can't find the old thread. Though one definition states block letters are capitals someone in the old post had a definition that didn't necessarily state capital letters. The way I learned way back when I used to paint signs, block letters were capital, uniform broad strokes, vertical staffs, with no serifs. If you think about it the signs would look silly with lower case and upper case both one inch in height. The alternative woulbe be to have the upper case high enough to differentiate from the one inch lower case.

puma guy wrote:This question has been around the block (no pun intended) though I can't find the old thread. Though one definition states block letters are capitals someone in the old post had a definition that didn't necessarily state capital letters. The way I learned way back when I used to paint signs, block letters were capital, uniform broad strokes, vertical staffs, with no serifs. If you think about it the signs would look silly with lower case and upper case both one inch in height. The alternative woulbe be to have the upper case high enough to differentiate from the one inch lower case.

Here is the link to one of those old worn out threads - http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... rs#p482051

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:This question has been around the block (no pun intended) though I can't find the old thread. Though one definition states block letters are capitals someone in the old post had a definition that didn't necessarily state capital letters. The way I learned way back when I used to paint signs, block letters were capital, uniform broad strokes, vertical staffs, with no serifs. If you think about it the signs would look silly with lower case and upper case both one inch in height. The alternative woulbe be to have the upper case high enough to differentiate from the one inch lower case.

Here is the link to one of those old worn out threads - http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... rs#p482051

Thanks, Bill!

ScottDLS wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

jason812 wrote:
Exactly. Criminals and even our own government try to skirt the law on technicalities. Why should we be any different?

Because we are better than that and hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Exactly, we hold ourselves to the standard of obeying the law as it was written....

It doesn't say "at least 63/64th's of an inch, or in cursive letters or wingding font, or posted in the executive bathroom in company HQ in NYC". So when we come across a sign that doesn't meet the requirements of the law, we ignore it.

Choosing to not carry a weapon when you are legally able to do so is NOT holding oneself to any type of "higher standard".

Here is a definitition of "block letters."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_letters

It's not a statutory definitition, but in the absence of a statutory definitition, this or something like it may be persuasive.

jason812 wrote: Even though handbook restricts my carrying, I can at least laugh to myself at their stupidity. I will not tell them either.:

Does the fact that it's in the handbook change the crime from class c to class a? I ask because my employer is posted - legally. My fear to carry anyway is the class 'a' due to the fact it is in the policy and everyone received an email that cc and OC are both not allowed.

Thoughts?

LTCTLB wrote:

jason812 wrote: Even though handbook restricts my carrying, I can at least laugh to myself at their stupidity. I will not tell them either.:

Does the fact that it's in the handbook change the crime from class c to class a? I ask because my employer is posted - legally. My fear to carry anyway is the class 'a' due to the fact it is in the policy and everyone received an email that cc and OC are both not allowed.

Thoughts?

Class C for violating 30.06/07 and upgraded to Class A if someone with apparent authority asks you to leave and you refuse.

except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.