TexasCHLforum.com

The other problem was that is was not on the door, it was on the wall in the hallway from the parking garage on the way to the building, I didn't even notice it until I was walking out of the building.

That is an old sign which does not meet the requirements of the current law.

Thats what I thought, what Irritated me the most is that it wasn't on or near the entrance but on the wall in the hallway, if hadn't stopped to answer my phone on the way out, I probably never have noticed it.

By the way this is at the Presbyterian Heart Institute on Walnut Hill, in Dallas.

jmoney wrote:Thats what I thought, what Irritated me the most is that it wasn't on or near the entrance but on the wall in the hallway, if hadn't stopped to answer my phone on the way out, I probably never have noticed it.

By the way this is at the Presbyterian Heart Institute on Walnut Hill, in Dallas.

Some businesses put the signs in the most inconspicuous places. I like the ones at foot level behind planters or posted on 8 1/2 x 11 paper.

It's already been said it's an obsolete sign but the current law doesn't require signs posted at or near doors, only that a sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public." Concealed behind a planter isn't clearly visible, but openly displayed on a wall of the hallway probably qualifies.

To jmoney and others who may be unsure of signage:

1. If it's a conforming 30.06 sign, you can't carry into such a posted site.

2. If it's non-conforming, stay silent, stay concealed, and carry into such sites.

3. Never, never, never alert a site with a non-compliant gunbusters sign that it
isn't a proper 30.06. We don't want them looking up the proper sign, posting it,
and keeping us CHL's out.

SIA

tacticool wrote:Concealed behind a planter isn't clearly visible, but openly displayed on a wall of the hallway probably qualifies.

I understand your point here, but I'll mildly challenge the last part of your sentence above

I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

"displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public"

To me this means:

If you honestly LOOKED for proper signage upon entering premises ...
AND if you didn't see this sign ...
And they can't prove you did see it ...

... you have some amount "plausible deniability".

Of course, you may have to take the ride and even show up in court to prove this etc etc . But maybe not. Maybe you can convince the officer called to the scene that "hey, I looked for signs at the entrance and there are none. I didn't even see this sign until I was leaving the building because of where it's placed."

My point is this. If you truly, honest to God, swear on the Bible DID NOT SEE the sign before entering, are you really guilty? Up to the LEO, the prosecutor, and ultimately the judge and/or jury to decide.

IMHO, the text of PC 30.06 was written the way it's written on purpose. To put the onus on BOTH the property owner and the CHLee to do their part. Our responsibility is to look high and low for proper signage and to respect and abide by the proper signage whenever we see it. If the owner does his/her part and puts up the correct sign with correct wording in letters of correct height in both English and Spanish, but then puts that sign in a side hallway between a parking garage and a building and that's THE ONLY printed notice (sign or otherwise) and there is no oral notice, then did the owner truly do all that was necessary to effectively give notice as required in PC 30.06?

As far as I know, there is no case history nor precedence on this issue. And - again - I AM NOT A LAWYER.

But I wouldn't sweat it. I also WOULD NOT go back there again while carrying IF this was a valid/enforceable sign (which has already been discussed, it likely is not in the OP's case).

This situation has happened to me a few times over the years with VALID AND ENFORCEABLE SIGNS .... kinda makes your heart jump into your throat when you first realize it, asking "did I just break the law?" One Austin-area hospital in particular has about three or four different types of signage, one of which is valid/enforceable - and it's only posted on ONE DOOR. But again, if you made an honest effort to look for proper signage (as we all should - it's our responsibility) and you didn't see it and you didn't get stopped, questioned, harassed, arrested - then again - don't sweat it.

A-R wrote:

tacticool wrote:Concealed behind a planter isn't clearly visible, but openly displayed on a wall of the hallway probably qualifies.

I understand your point here, but I'll mildly challenge the last part of your sentence above

I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

"displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public"

To me this means:

If you honestly LOOKED for proper signage upon entering premises ...
AND if you didn't see this sign ...
And they can't prove you did see it ...

... you have some amount "plausible deniability".

Of course, you may have to take the ride and even show up in court to prove this etc etc . But maybe not. Maybe you can convince the officer called to the scene that "hey, I looked for signs at the entrance and there are none. I didn't even see this sign until I was leaving the building because of where it's placed."

My point is this. If you truly, honest to God, swear on the Bible DID NOT SEE the sign before entering, are you really guilty? Up to the LEO, the prosecutor, and ultimately the judge and/or jury to decide.

IMHO, the text of PC 30.06 was written the way it's written on purpose. To put the onus on BOTH the property owner and the CHLee to do their part. Our responsibility is to look high and low for proper signage and to respect and abide by the proper signage whenever we see it. If the owner does his/her part and puts up the correct sign with correct wording in letters of correct height in both English and Spanish, but then puts that sign in a side hallway between a parking garage and a building and that's THE ONLY printed notice (sign or otherwise) and there is no oral notice, then did the owner truly do all that was necessary to effectively give notice as required in PC 30.06?

As far as I know, there is no case history nor precedence on this issue. And - again - I AM NOT A LAWYER.

But I wouldn't sweat it. I also WOULD NOT go back there again while carrying IF this was a valid/enforceable sign (which has already been discussed, it likely is not in the OP's case).

This situation has happened to me a few times over the years with VALID AND ENFORCEABLE SIGNS .... kinda makes your heart jump into your throat when you first realize it, asking "did I just break the law?" One Austin-area hospital in particular has about three or four different types of signage, one of which is valid/enforceable - and it's only posted on ONE DOOR. But again, if you made an honest effort to look for proper signage (as we all should - it's our responsibility) and you didn't see it and you didn't get stopped, questioned, harassed, arrested - then again - don't sweat it.

IMHO if the sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" there shouldn't be any need for you to "look" for the sign when entering a building. As far as I'm concerned the sign should pretty much knock you down when you enter the building.

jmra wrote:IMHO if the sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" there shouldn't be any need for you to "look" for the sign when entering a building. As far as I'm concerned the sign should pretty much knock you down when you enter the building.

I agree. And I wasn't meaning to infer that you must go seeking out a sign in every nook and cranny of a building. Merely that you have to at least "look" and not have your head buried in your iPhone or something upon entering the building and then claim you didn't see the 2-foot by 3-foot white sign with 1-inch block letters on the exterior wall to the right of the entrance door you walked through.

The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

johnson0317 wrote:The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

The speed limit sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". The 30.06 must also be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" in order to meet the requirements of the law.
I don't know about you but when I am driving I don't have to "look" for speed limit signs, they pretty much jump out at you. Nor do I read anywhere in 30.06 where the burden is placed on me to find a sign. In fact by the wording "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" the burden is placed on the displayer of the sign to ensure that it is placed where for all practical purposes I can't miss it.

jmra wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

The speed limit sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". The 30.06 must also be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" in order to meet the requirements of the law.
I don't know about you but when I am driving I don't have to "look" for speed limit signs, they pretty much jump out at you. Nor do I read anywhere in 30.06 where the burden is placed on me to find a sign. In fact by the wording "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" the burden is placed on the displayer of the sign to ensure that it is placed where for all practical purposes I can't miss it.

Absolutely true, but they are not at or sometimes even near all the entrances to a highway. Sometimes they are not even within the section that I will drive on. And there are many speed limit signs on city streets that are blocked or semi obscured by tree limbs or bushes.

There are also some instances where I may be more concerned with the traffic around me and miss a sign. This has happened to me more than once and I've been honked at for not increasing from 60 to 65 mph. I did finally see the sign on another trip, so I now know that area is 65 mph.

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

The speed limit sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". The 30.06 must also be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" in order to meet the requirements of the law.
I don't know about you but when I am driving I don't have to "look" for speed limit signs, they pretty much jump out at you. Nor do I read anywhere in 30.06 where the burden is placed on me to find a sign. In fact by the wording "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" the burden is placed on the displayer of the sign to ensure that it is placed where for all practical purposes I can't miss it.

Absolutely true, but they are not at or sometimes even near all the entrances to a highway. Sometimes they are not even within the section that I will drive on. And there are many speed limit signs on city streets that are blocked or semi obscured by tree limbs or bushes.

There are also some instances where I may be more concerned with the traffic around me and miss a sign. This has happened to me more than once and I've been honked at for not increasing from 60 to 65 mph. I did finally see the sign on another trip, so I now know that area is 65 mph.

I agree that highway signs do become obscured by nature but it has been my personal experience and that of my wife that when this has been pointed out to an officer on location or a judge at a hearing through photos that no ticket is issued by the officer or the ticket is thrown out by the judge. During one of these occasions the judge actually admonished the officer for wasting the courts time by writing a ticket that could not be enforced because the sign was not visible.
I am not suggesting that someone put blinders on when entering a building while carrying. I am suggesting that the displayer has the responsibility to ensure that the sign is clearly visible to the public.

I understand being concerned about traffic around you and missing a sign and I see how that could happen with a 30.06 sign in a "high traffic" entrance. But I also believe that is something the displayer must take into consideration. When you are on an 8 lane interstate in the middle of a heavily populated area an upcoming exit is going to be marked by a large overhead sign not a 12"x16" sign of the shoulder of the road. I believe this is the same intent of the law when it states "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:To jmoney and others who may be unsure of signage:

1. If it's a conforming 30.06 sign, you can't carry into such a posted site.

2. If it's non-conforming, stay silent, stay concealed, and carry into such sites.

3. Never, never, never alert a site with a non-compliant gunbusters sign that it
isn't a proper 30.06. We don't want them looking up the proper sign, posting it,
and keeping us CHL's out.

SIA

, that pretty answers the question and it answers it quite concisely.

jmra wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The law seems to have more to do with your own due diligence to be looking for, and aware, of the posted sign than for them to make it a "slap you across the face" sort of encounter. There can be a perfectly legal sign posted on the entrance door, and people are going to miss it for whatever reason (and we wonder why people wander around in condition white). You can not use missing a posted sign as an excuse unless it is truly blocked from view. It is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket because you did not notice the sign that changed the speed limit from 70 to 35.

The speed limit sign is "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". The 30.06 must also be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" in order to meet the requirements of the law.
I don't know about you but when I am driving I don't have to "look" for speed limit signs, they pretty much jump out at you. Nor do I read anywhere in 30.06 where the burden is placed on me to find a sign. In fact by the wording "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" the burden is placed on the displayer of the sign to ensure that it is placed where for all practical purposes I can't miss it.

Absolutely true, but they are not at or sometimes even near all the entrances to a highway. Sometimes they are not even within the section that I will drive on. And there are many speed limit signs on city streets that are blocked or semi obscured by tree limbs or bushes.

There are also some instances where I may be more concerned with the traffic around me and miss a sign. This has happened to me more than once and I've been honked at for not increasing from 60 to 65 mph. I did finally see the sign on another trip, so I now know that area is 65 mph.

I agree that highway signs do become obscured by nature but it has been my personal experience and that of my wife that when this has been pointed out to an officer on location or a judge at a hearing through photos that no ticket is issued by the officer or the ticket is thrown out by the judge. During one of these occasions the judge actually admonished the officer for wasting the courts time by writing a ticket that could not be enforced because the sign was not visible.
I am not suggesting that someone put blinders on when entering a building while carrying. I am suggesting that the displayer has the responsibility to ensure that the sign is clearly visible to the public.

I understand being concerned about traffic around you and missing a sign and I see how that could happen with a 30.06 sign in a "high traffic" entrance. But I also believe that is something the displayer must take into consideration. When you are on an 8 lane interstate in the middle of a heavily populated area an upcoming exit is going to be marked by a large overhead sign not a 12"x16" sign of the shoulder of the road. I believe this is the same intent of the law when it states "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

And while one is a mere traffic violation and we loose our CHL for the other, I actually think that speeding is much more dangerous than me carrying my concealed handgun into a business that will probably never see it anyway.