The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
As we have said before, there is no case law on 30.06. So, anything we say here is only opinion - not actual fact. The sign we had as example in your renewal class was one in which the spanish translation was so poor as to not even make sense. So I would say, in that case, that a person who spoke only spanish would not have received effective notice. Don't get me started on the validity of a CHL for a person who does not speak english well enough to understand a 30.06 sign. That is another thread for another day.The Annoyed Man wrote: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.harrycallahan wrote: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.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.
Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.
I ignore signs that don't meet the clear requirements in the law. If I was worried about being a "test case" because some incompetent doesn't know the law, or because some jerk will intentionally ignore the law, I would be afraid to carry off my own property at all.dac1842 wrote:who is willing to spend 10's of thousands to be the test case? I would honor the sign
The statute says what it says. Trial court judges interpret those words, each for themselves, unless there is an appellate decision interpreting the statute, which is binding on the trial courts in that appellate district (I don't know how appeals courts are organized in Texas, sorry!). An appellate interpretation doesn't bind, but is often persuasive, trial courts in other appellate districts, as well as trial court interpretations which are persuasive only on other trial courts. A state Supreme court interpretation is binding upon all the lower state courts, of course.The Annoyed Man wrote:
....... 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.
tbrown wrote:I ignore signs that don't meet the clear requirements in the law. If I was worried about being a "test case" because some incompetent doesn't know the law, or because some jerk will intentionally ignore the law, I would be afraid to carry off my own property at all.dac1842 wrote:who is willing to spend 10's of thousands to be the test case? I would honor the sign
With Oldgringo, TexasCajun, and MasterOfNone.OMG, you just shattered all faith I've ever had in our legal system.MasterOfNone wrote:Now imagine Eric Holder as DA and Sotomayor as Judge with an Austin jury. What are the odds of the exact letter of the law being upheld?