TexasCHLforum.com

nimravus01 wrote:Aaaannnnddd we're off topic...

The law says: "(B) a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

I'm no lawyer, but, nothing about that would lead me to believe that the sign can legally be split into two or more parts. Especially if those parts are separated by a significant distance as the OP described.

I agree but personal opinions are just that, unless there's case law that we're unaware of. However, unless I refuse to leave when told, the penalty is a modest fine that doesn't affect LTC eligibility and would cost more to fight than pay.

nimravus01 wrote:Aaaannnnddd we're off topic...

The law says: "(B) a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

I'm no lawyer, but, nothing about that would lead me to believe that the sign can legally be split into two or more parts. Especially if those parts are separated by a significant distance as the OP described.

2 ot MORE parts???? So, if I broke the sign into each word and spread it around the front if the store, that would be fine?

Then we could play wheel of fortune

Not to nit pick, but we all get that this sign is legal no matter what. It has broken no laws.

Now whether it is "enforceable" may be up for debate.

Has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for carry past any sign? Especially 30.06? I have never heard of a case or seen a news story?

TreyHouston wrote:

nimravus01 wrote:Aaaannnnddd we're off topic...

The law says: "(B) a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

I'm no lawyer, but, nothing about that would lead me to believe that the sign can legally be split into two or more parts. Especially if those parts are separated by a significant distance as the OP described.

2 ot MORE parts???? So, if I broke the sign into each word and spread it around the front if the store, that would be fine?

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me rephrase: The way I am reading the law, I do not think a sign split (into anything other than one complete sign,) would be in compliance with the law.

Thank you for your replies. I mispoke. It was a 30.07, so does not affect me. I always carry concealed. My daughter sent the picture and said 30.06. Anyway, they are both legible even through her filthy truck window.

chamberc wrote:

sarn756 wrote:My daughter spotted a 30.06 sign today with the Spanish on the left side of the door and the English on the right side. I am assuming this to be legal...

Like most situations, it would have to be settled in court. To me, that's enough I wouldn't carry.

You do know that you could be arrested for literally anything, and that the final decision on your guilt would be settled in court, right? If this is the standard you are following, then you are running a risk of having to go to court by being alive, and a greater risk with every single action you take during the day, such as getting out of bed, etc. This is putting aside truly foolhardy things like daring to leave your home, of course.

The only way to truly avoid "taking the ride" is by being dead.

steveincowtown wrote:Not to nit pick, but we all get that this sign is legal no matter what. It has broken no laws.

Now whether it is "enforceable" may be up for debate.

Has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for carry past any sign? Especially 30.06? I have never heard of a case or seen a news story?

The sign may not have broken any laws, but if the sign is on government owned property, then it may be evidence of a criminal act by someone who illegally authorized the sign to be posted. Even in that case, the sign itself would not be guilty of a crime.

As far as something posted on clear glass, IANAL but I don't think that clear glass has color by anyone's definition, but you would naturally look at the color of the letters against whatever is directly behind that clear glass. There are some places that post white letters on clear glass where there is a white wall right behind that glass (signs are not next to the doors). Personally, I don't think that meets the requirement for "contrasting colors", and in all honesty they are extremely hard to see.

WildBill wrote:I worked on a book with another author and it took about two years to write it and get it published.

That's fast.

nimravus01 wrote:The way I am reading the law, I do not think a sign split (into anything other than one complete sign,) would be in compliance with the law.

A respectable argument, no doubt one most judges would listen to and consider. Whether it's consistently a winning argument is less clear to me. I intend to treat such signs as binding. Whether others do so is up to them. We each have different tolerances for risk. On criminal prosecutions, mine is pretty low ( I have been known to exceed the speed limit).

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Not to nit pick, but we all get that this sign is legal no matter what. It has broken no laws.

Now whether it is "enforceable" may be up for debate.

Has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for carry past any sign? Especially 30.06? I have never heard of a case or seen a news story?

The sign may not have broken any laws, but if the sign is on government owned property, then it may be evidence of a criminal act by someone who illegally authorized the sign to be posted. Even in that case, the sign itself would not be guilty of a crime.

It actually not even a criminal act for someone to authorize a 30.06 sign to be posted on government property. It would be a whole lot cooler if the law was written that way!

As with most things in life, it comes down to which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

steveincowtown wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Not to nit pick, but we all get that this sign is legal no matter what. It has broken no laws.

Now whether it is "enforceable" may be up for debate.

Has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for carry past any sign? Especially 30.06? I have never heard of a case or seen a news story?

The sign may not have broken any laws, but if the sign is on government owned property, then it may be evidence of a criminal act by someone who illegally authorized the sign to be posted. Even in that case, the sign itself would not be guilty of a crime.

It actually not even a criminal act for someone to authorize a 30.06 sign to be posted on government property. It would be a whole lot cooler if the law was written that way!

You're right. It is a violation of the law, but not criminal, if I understand the distinction correctly. And I agree that it would be a huge improvement if the folks who authorized this violation of the law could be held criminally liable for the harm they inflict.

oljames3 wrote:As with most things in life, it comes down to which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Deciding to do anything involves a balance between the hope for a positive outcome and the fear of a negative outcome. Or in the case of carrying past a non-legit sign it is the fear of a small negative outcome (wrongly charged with an infraction that has a max penalty of a $200 fine) against the fear of a huge negative outcome (death or injury to you and your loved ones). Both of these outcomes have an extremely remote likelihood of occurrence as long as you are carrying concealed.

KLB wrote:

WildBill wrote:I worked on a book with another author and it took about two years to write it and get it published.

That's fast.

Well, it wasn't "To Kill a Mockingbird"