TexasCHLforum.com

I was taking someone to a medical office this morning. As I pulled up to the building I noticed the dreaded 30.06 sign. I left the G in the car and went in. While waiting, i thought i would post to 30.06.com. Thats when when I noticed the typo in the sign. So would you ignore this sign and carry anyway?

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt21 ... 794305.jpg

I wouldn't ignore it. To each his own though.

Technically, I do not think you would be convicted of a crime if you carried, HOWEVER, I do believe if caught carrying, you could at least be harrassed by the police should you be found carrying.
Yes, it is a typo on the sign, which makes it not fit 100% of the definition, but it looks as if it is an innocent error and could be construed as you passed a "legally enforceable" sign

If it were me, I would NOT carry past this sign

Nope - the intent of the business owner is pretty clear.

I don't read and comprehend Spanish, but it does say 30.06 there. I would not ignore it either. I think it may be close enough you would have a major battle on your hands to defend yourself against the criminal trespass charge.

Keith B wrote:I don't read and comprehend Spanish, but it does say 30.06 there. I would not ignore it either. I think it may be close enough you would have a major battle on your hands to defend yourself against the criminal trespass charge.

I wonder if the english typo was an intentional mistake by the sign manufacturer who may have wanted to give a chl'er a way out
jk, that's the conspiracy gene coming out again.

I would not carry past this sign either.

Regardless of the type, I don' think those are 1" letters.
If they are not, then it's not legally enforceable.

If it's a Doctor's office or medical establishment I'd say the intend is legit, even if the sign is not. I'd err on the side of caution and not carry. I don't carry inside when I go to the Doc anyway.

I usually respect gun buster signs and take my business else where

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.

It is really close to spec, but I'd have to say I wouldn't honor the sign. To each their own on this one, but it is not enforceable. Easily missed I might add. The error.

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.

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.

If we are talking TECHNICALLY I think it wouldn't be compliant for either since the law specifies that it....

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

Since it doesn't include the correct verbage in both languages it is non-complaint not matter what language you speak/read. (IANAL, IMHO, etc.)


That being said, I probably wouldn't carry past it.


PS.The copying of TAM's TECHNICALLY was in jest, and by no means an attempt to poke the sleeping bear.

This is one where, to me at least, it is not a matter of the letter of the law (no pun intended) but respect for the Doctors' views. If the sign was in almost any other loaction I might feel differently but there again I would probably look for an alternate source for whatever goods or services I was in need of. a.k.a take my money elsewhere.