If you ignore a 30.06 sign and your caught it's a felony. Those that are ignoring them on a daily basis as you say are breaking the law. I doubt any CHL instructor w/a DPS auditor in their class will tell anyone that they may ignore a sign. Maybe were not understanding one another here because it's the internet and were typing etc... I'm going to be honest and say that I don't know of an actual case where someone ignored a valid or half valid 30.06 sign and got away w/it. Do you? Does anyone on the board?wgoforth wrote:A couple of points here... to say there are not that many cases where people ignored a sign that is half correct... don't you mean ignored and CAUGHT? I know that those signs are ignored daily, and CHL instructors tell you that you may. If your CAUGHT, then you should be checking your concealment method. Second, on saying that we are in error for saying that the sign must be EXACTLY as the law says.... Read again PC 30.06, the business MUST have a sign IDENTICAL to the following wording. As a preacher, I hear this regularly as folks say "I know the Bible says this, but don't think it really means that." In both cases, it says what it says... we are not the lawmaker. If they didn't want it to mean "identical" they could have said otherwise. And in both cases, folks tend to say "I don't think" rather than "What saith the law." Everyone ought to take a class in Hermeneutics.... the science of interpreting what is written.pcgizzmo wrote:Obviously if you walk in and the situation is questionable and you leave then I'd like to think you would be given the benefit of the doubt but I think there are those here that believe if the sign isn't EXACTLY the way the law say's it should be then they will be exonerated and I don't think that's correct. Statistically I don't think we have anything to draw a conclusion with. There are just not that many cases where people have ignored a 30.06 sign and or ignored a sign that's only half correct to find out. The actual written law is disregarded on a daily basis. Appeals courts are full of appeals for people that feel the law didn't decide correctly. Judges are human, have human emotions, have their own political beliefs and event's in their lives that affect their rulings. It's not supposed to be that way but if you think it's not then your fooling yourself. Ask yourself why Hollywood stars get many slaps on the wrist but well meaning citizens that do the same things the stars do get thrown under the bus.sugar land dave wrote:Thanks for that, but I choose to believe that when the law sets some standards and specifically say that they are the MINIMUM, that judges will be smart enough to know the meaning of the word. I also choose to think that the overwhelming majority of LEO's and DA's will give you an opportunity to leave the premises if the situation is questionable. I think statistics back up that belief. I believe that the small chance that I will need to defend myself is greater than that chance that law professionals will misinterpret and disregard the actual written law.pcgizzmo wrote:As we all know the law is broadly interpreted. It can be read to the letter and followed that way or it can also be interpreted as to what the intent was. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about it's done all the time. When it come's to the CHL posting's yes, it's very clear as to the way the sign is supposed to be but a judge is not always going to take that verbatim.
There is this thing called substantial compliance. compliance with the substantial or essential requirements of something (as a statute or contract) that satisfies its purpose or objective even though its formal requirements are not complied with.
If a sign is 90% compliant. Then it will possibly meet a judges standard for substantial compliance regardless of what all the people running around here looking for larger letters or contrasting background might say. If that happens you can get in trouble.
For the record I'm married to an attorney, I know have the attorneys in the larger firms in Dallas and Tarrant county and I've had this discussion w/defense attorneys that used to work for the Dallas DA and they are all in agreement. It REALLY depends on the judge you get and how they want to take your case.
No, you can appeal all the way up the line and get a ruling on it that way but do you really want to take that chance? Gun buster signs are a non issue. 30.06 signs can be a problem.
So as bad as some of you might not like to hear it. You MIGHT beat the rap but not the ride or you might not beat either.
Regarding the science of interpreting what is written. Is that why we speak of "test cases" on here all the time regarding gun laws? I mean if the laws are clear and all that then there shouldn't be the need for a test case because it would be plain as day to all of us what would happen. No test case needed. You know as well as I do that laws are subject to interpretation. That's why you need higher courts of appeal. If laws were that clear then evey thing would be cut and dry and there would be no need for appeal. As a preacher I'm sure you believe things are black and white and I can respect that but I also know there are shades of gray.
I'm just stating and going back to the original posters question that after talking to several attorneys that just because the sign is not exactly correct there is a provision in the law called substantial compliance that would allow a DA or judge to prosecute someone for walking past a 30.06 sign that's not 100% compliant but where the owner has made an effort in substantial compliance of the law. Where that line is I'm not willing to test. If there are others here that would like to test it be my guest.
Truthfully if you conceal properly as you say then you don't have to worry about getting caught and being a test case.
