I agree that this is where the human factor gets involved in law. 30.06 signs are supposed to be displayed in English and Spanish to make them compliant. But how many of us would go into an establishment that had 30.06 posted (properly, one inch letters, contrasting background, etc.) but only in English? I certainly wouldn't. I could claim that it wasn't posted in English AND Spanish, but I'd probably lose since English is my primary language (I don't speak Spanish) and the rest of the criteria was met.punkndisorderly wrote:Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.
That's what I seem to remember them referencing in my instructor class. Again, my memory is not the best, so take this with a grain of salt. In short, their argument was that a DA could argue substantial compliance in the case of a sign not meeting all aspects of 30.06 and that a local judge or jury could rule that way.
The letter of the law in 30.06 seems clear to me. Ditto the intent. But my interpretation and that of an anti-gun and politically motivated judge and DA are likely to be different.
With that being said, I think it's clear that the legislature set standards for sign postings to ensure that the average citizen doesn't get penalized for poorly defined/designed signage.
Honestly, I don't think it's too much for businesses to acquire proper 30.06 signs if they are really serious about keeping people out. They are a nominal cost to the business but would prevent any potential for law abiding citizens such as ourselves from taking rides (or worse).