TexasCHLforum.com

This sign (attached...I hope...apologies as I don't think I ever posted a pic before) is posted inside a building that I frequently work at on the 1st floor near a freight elevator. It's a curious building. It has several outpatient, medical specialties/clinics on each floor that companies or private physicians typically lease for their prospective businesses. Only the upper 5 floors to my knowledge are still considered a 'hospital'- but that is my perception and certainly another issue in of itself. Oh, and the sub-level of said building is leased to a restaurant/bar adding to the confusion.

At one time, the sign you see now actually read '30.05....' with virtually the same language as it does now. About 2 months ago, I noticed they were repainting that particular entrance and the sign had vanished. I thought, finally someone just got rid of the eyesore and that was the end of it. Well, it returned and it had been modified with '30.06....' along with the red, fine print in the lower right corner. The red 51 is not a new addition either.

My initial impression is that it is a noncompliant sign and therefor not valid. However, with all the knowledge on this board, I figured I'd toss it out there for other observations. (other than the sign is sideways)


Rok

I didnt read the text to see if it was actually verbatim. What I would look for, is are the letter of the sign in 30.06 posting at least 1inch in height?
I would guess not, if it is the size of a 51% sign, but I have nothing to compare the size to.

It's about 36 inches tall and at least 28 inches wide. Text size and contrast is probably the only thing compliant about the sign.

Teamless wrote:I didnt read the text to see if it was actually verbatim. What I would look for, is are the letter of the sign in 30.06 posting at least 1inch in height?
I would guess not, if it is the size of a 51% sign, but I have nothing to compare the size to.

The text is not verbatim as described in the Law as it references the old Vernon's Civil Statutes instead of Subchapter H of the Government Code.

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun".

Who makes all these non-compliant signs and why do they appear to find it so hard to get a simple task right?

Also - am I right in assuming that the big red "51" is an attempt to co-opt the 51% stuff for an area where it doesn't apply? If so, isn't that a bit... well, naughty?

chartreuse wrote:
Also - am I right in assuming that the big red "51" is an attempt to co-opt the 51% stuff for an area where it doesn't apply? If so, isn't that a bit... well, naughty?

Is there no fine or penalty for improper use of a 30.06 sign or a "51" sign? This kind of stuff is annoying.

lkd wrote:

chartreuse wrote:
Also - am I right in assuming that the big red "51" is an attempt to co-opt the 51% stuff for an area where it doesn't apply? If so, isn't that a bit... well, naughty?

Is there no fine or penalty for improper use of a 30.06 sign or a "51" sign? This kind of stuff is annoying.

30.06? I doubt it. So far, claiming legal authority where none exists isn't per se illegal, nor is being wrong on what the law says. The 51% sign, I'm not so sure about. I think the TABC requires that getting that one right as part of you liquor license, but I'm not sure why I think that. Seems like maybe I read it somewhere, but I can't remember. Maybe Mr. Cotton or one of the other actual lawyers around here can answer that question.

That sign purports to regulate people licensed under Article 4413 Section (29 ee) ... I wasn't
BUT then in red, it states " Article 4413 Section (29 ee) has been codified Chapter 411 Government code" but is that part 1" block letters?


Strange sign, though informative I suppose.

My guess is they had a sign, someone found out it wasn't compliant any more and "said something" ; Supervisor assigned some CHL employee to "update" the sign, and he did.

SO ... looks like the sign is all up to date now.

chartreuse wrote:Who makes all these non-compliant signs and why do they appear to find it so hard to get a simple task right?

Also - am I right in assuming that the big red "51" is an attempt to co-opt the 51% stuff for an area where it doesn't apply? If so, isn't that a bit... well, naughty?

Maybe there are some really fun medical offices in the building and therefore they're required to post the 51% notification (although the sign isn't valid notification in that case).

lkd wrote:Is there no fine or penalty for improper use of a 30.06 sign or a "51" sign? This kind of stuff is annoying.

Licensed establishments might get in some sort of trouble for improperly posting 51% signs, although I've never heard of anything happening besides them being told to put up the right sign.

With §30.06 signs, it is probably best that there is no penalty. If there were a penalty, places might try harder to comply with the requirements, leading to more legally binding signs.

lkd wrote:

chartreuse wrote:
Also - am I right in assuming that the big red "51" is an attempt to co-opt the 51% stuff for an area where it doesn't apply? If so, isn't that a bit... well, naughty?

Is there no fine or penalty for improper use of a 30.06 sign or a "51" sign? This kind of stuff is annoying.

Oh, if only! But, then again, after they paid their fine they would post the correct sign and we wouldn't be able to carry there without the risk of losing our license for sure. And once that word got around all the other places would soon correct their incorrect signs.

I say, just conceal away and leave to their own ignorance.

Does Isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol count?

I seem to remember that hospitals were required to post a sign similar to the OP's sign that was specified by some regulation concerning signs for hospitals. I use to go to the Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and always noticed their sign had the big 51 in it and looked like the OP's picture. I always found it funny, but in checking it out, it seemed to be a legal sign. Charles or Crossfire should be able to shed some light on this.

tomc wrote:I seem to remember that hospitals were required to post a sign similar to the OP's sign that was specified by some regulation concerning signs for hospitals. I use to go to the Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and always noticed their sign had the big 51 in it and looked like the OP's picture. I always found it funny, but in checking it out, it seemed to be a legal sign. Charles or Crossfire should be able to shed some light on this.

Hospitals are required by Government Code section 411.204 to post a sign that is identical to the TABC 51 sign EXCEPT for the red 51. yes, this is still law and it means absolutely nothing toa CHL anymore. To stop a CHL the hospital still has to post a proper 30.06 sign.

Didn't I tell y'all about one of my side businesses???

I sell fake/purposely inaccurate 30.06 signs!

Just kidding, but it sure would be fun to "fleece" the sheeple!