TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote: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.

I am not being flippant in my response. This is an interesting concept. Since I can't read Spanish, the sign shouldn't have to be written in both English and Spanish, because it is substantially compliant for me. Having the Spanish translation does nothing to help me understand the intent of the sign.

...if that worked in statuatory law, as it does in civil(contract) law...then I'd never get a ticket for doing 65 in a 60, because I was close...never get a ticket for bumping a stop sign, instead of coming to a complete stop, and wouldn't get arrested for shoplifting if I paid for seven of the eight candy bars I picked up...statuatory law just won't work that way...that's why substantial compliance isn't used in this area of law...there are strict definitions that make the law...and we must match them to keep it...and they must match them to enforce it...because there are punishments, the wiggle room can't be there...

[quote="sugar land dave"
The use of fear and twisted meanings seems more like an anti-gun tactic than that of a CHL student or holder so I am somewhat confused. No one here should advocate ignoring a 30.06 which appears to meet the minimum standards set by the State Of Texas. Most will go out of their way to abide by a sign that is close to being correct. Largely people with good records qualify for a CHL in spite of what some would claim. They have good records by having made good choices throughout their life to date. I think they should continue to trust their instincts rather than the fear.

[/quote]

I"m not advocating fear or even trying to incite it. ALL I'm trying to say is don't be so sure that if you decide to walk past a partially correct 30.06 sign and get caught your going to be able to get off by citing that the sign was incorrect. Is just not that cut and dry no matter how it's rationalized.

Here's an example. I've been to some gun shows where a 30.06 sign is posted. It's not the right size lettering, missing stuff etc... I am 100% sure if I would have ignored that sign and got caught I would go to jail. I would pay hell trying to fight it and would I have won the case? Maybe but maybe not. Either way, why would I take the chance when I know what the people meant by trying to post a 90% correct sign? That's all I'm saying. I've just seen posts here where people have said "Saw 30.06 and letters weren't big enough so I walked on by" or " Not a contrasting background so I walked on by". This is not prudent thinking I don't believe.

Your at the mercy of the DA and judge and how closely they decide to follow the rule, lettering and intent of the law.

...CHL holders are some of the most law-abiding folks in Texas, and that's why so many of the CHL laws have been so carefully written and detailed to the nth degree...give us the standard and we'll meet it...but don't move the bar after we've jumped...that's not legal...your main argument is that the DA and/or judge may not enforce the law as it is written...but according to their whim or opinion...as the law is WRITTEN...so we will live by it, so must it be enforced, or those wronged by those who do NOT enforce it as written have recourse...and would take it...
...for law to work, there cannot be a double standard...they cannot hold us to the letter and them only to the spirit...won't fly in Texas!!!

speedsix wrote:

WildBill wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote: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.

I am not being flippant in my response. This is an interesting concept. Since I can't read Spanish, the sign shouldn't have to be written in both English and Spanish, because it is substantially compliant for me. Having the Spanish translation does nothing to help me understand the intent of the sign.

...if that worked in statuatory law, as it does in civil(contract) law...then I'd never get a ticket for doing 65 in a 60, because I was close...never get a ticket for bumping a stop sign, instead of coming to a complete stop, and wouldn't get arrested for shoplifting if I paid for seven of the eight candy bars I picked up...statuatory law just won't work that way...that's why substantial compliance isn't used in this area of law...there are strict definitions that make the law...and we must match them to keep it...and they must match them to enforce it...because there are punishments, the wiggle room can't be there...

It does work for statues as well. Intoxication is a statute but it's ambiguous as to the fact an officer only has to suspect you are intoxicated to charge you with it regardless of written statues stating what intoxication is.

Sometimes I think people on here put to much faith in government. Our laws although they look like it are anything but cut and dry. Attorney's make really good money defending people for that very reason.

speedsix wrote:...CHL holders are some of the most law-abiding folks in Texas, and that's why so many of the CHL laws have been so carefully written and detailed to the nth degree...give us the standard and we'll meet it...but don't move the bar after we've jumped...that's not legal...your main argument is that the DA and/or judge may not enforce the law as it is written...but according to their whim or opinion...as the law is WRITTEN...so we will live by it, so must it be enforced, or those wronged by those who do NOT enforce it as written have recourse...and would take it...
...for law to work, there cannot be a double standard...they cannot hold us to the letter and them only to the spirit...won't fly in Texas!!!

The law is full of double standards. Just look at the tax code. It is also subjective in certain cases. Just as OJ Simpson. Worked great for him.

...we are ONLY considering CHL law here...which is NOT full of double standards...as it is clearly written...your whole argument is based on your assumption that the DA and/or judge won't enforce the law as it was written...and that's the problem...law is decided on, voted on, passed, signed into law, and published to be followed...not just by , in this case, CHL holders, but also by stores who wish to keep us out, and by LEOs whose job is to enforce it...most of us don't expect the DA and/or judge to do any differently...read it, obey it, enforce it...as it is written...or we might as well throw it out...
and that's my final answer on the subject...

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are a few states that have a "substantial compliance" section concerning signs in their concealed carry laws. Texas does not.

Tennessee has such a provision, to allow old signage, but it only applies to government entities.

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

(c) Any posted notice being used by a local, state or federal governmental entity on July 1, 2000, that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section may continue to be used by the governmental entity.

WildBill wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but there are a few states that have a "substantial compliance" section concerning signs in their concealed carry laws.

Does that mean Texas follows the Perfect Tender Rule?

tacticool wrote:

WildBill wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but there are a few states that have a "substantial compliance" section concerning signs in their concealed carry laws.

Does that mean Texas follows the Perfect Tender Rule?

Only for beef. Doesn't apply to horses.

WildBill wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote:Statistically I don't think we have anything to draw a conclusion with.

I think we do. The DPS statistics show that there are very few CHL holders who are convicted for this offense. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... vrates.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very few = none. If you're talking Trespass by CHL (30.06) or Trespass (30.05, before 1997). Maybe there are some 30.06 sign violations buried in 46.035 (unlawful carry by licensee) for 46.035(b)(4,5,6)&(c)...where sign is required to enforce. But the one case that we know of (Bedford Nurse) the DA declined to prosecute because the notice apparently wasn't "close enough".

You can "take a ride" for doing anything legal if a LEO wrongly believes that what you are doing is illegal. Yes, there is a chance that you may be detained and transported to a holding facility for doing something that is completely legal. This is not exclusive to carrying a concealed weapon, and could happen anytime while doing any activity. If you are overly concerned, then barricade yourself in a compound and live like a hermit.

Personally, I will just continue living my life as a law abiding citizen knowing that there is a chance I could be detained for a crime I did not commit. That would suck if it happened, but in the grand scheme of things, it's far from the worst thing that could happen to me. I could also get struck by lightning or get hit by a car, etc., etc.

ScottDLS wrote:

WildBill wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote:Statistically I don't think we have anything to draw a conclusion with.

I think we do. The DPS statistics show that there are very few CHL holders who are convicted for this offense. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... vrates.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very few = none. If you're talking Trespass by CHL (30.06) or Trespass (30.05, before 1997). Maybe there are some 30.06 sign violations buried in 46.035 (unlawful carry by licensee) for 46.035(b)(4,5,6)&(c)...where sign is required to enforce. But the one case that we know of (Bedford Nurse) the DA declined to prosecute because the notice apparently wasn't "close enough".

The statement that I got from the Chief of Police was the DA declined to prosecute was because the language of the notice was not identical to that required by statute. [My emphasis added.]
Of course, YDAMV - Your DA May Vary.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12754&hilit=bedford&start=105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

WildBill wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote:Statistically I don't think we have anything to draw a conclusion with.

I think we do. The DPS statistics show that there are very few CHL holders who are convicted for this offense. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... vrates.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very few = none. If you're talking Trespass by CHL (30.06) or Trespass (30.05, before 1997). Maybe there are some 30.06 sign violations buried in 46.035 (unlawful carry by licensee) for 46.035(b)(4,5,6)&(c)...where sign is required to enforce. But the one case that we know of (Bedford Nurse) the DA declined to prosecute because the notice apparently wasn't "close enough".

The statement that I got from the Chief of Police was the DA declined to prosecute was because the language of the notice was not identical to that required by statute. [My emphasis added.]
Of course, YDAMV - Your DA May Vary.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12754&hilit=bedford&start=105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wildbill...surely you don't mean the law says what it means and means what it says do you?? Wow.... I might have to try that approach to the Bible in my preaching too!