TexasCHLforum.com

Hoi Polloi wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:And the valid sign picture should have block letters (all caps) pointed out because that's a requirement as well which doesn't get much air play.

A requirement that the sign be in all caps is not included in the statute. "Block letters" is not the same as "all caps". Block letters generally just means no cursive or script style of type font.

Of course the "legal definition" of block letters is up to courts/judges and interpretation, but here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_letters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As long as the sign is not hand-written and not written in some difficult-to-decipher type font (like "Old English" or similar), I don't believe it matters if it's written with both upper case and lower case letters.

Interesting. The DPS website's official wording of how a sign must look includes all caps and then points out that what is shown may not be used as a sign because it does not meet the other requirements of size, color, etc.

I'm still not finding where it says "all caps" .... http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IANAL

Gray, I think I get what you're saying. Two important points in response:

1. Regardless of why you entered a private premises (just "because" or to "make a point"), if you are asked to leave and refuse to do so it no longer matters what signs were or were not posted. You have violated the law (of course, subject to judge/jury ruling).

2. I think I can speak for a number of members here and a number of CHLees when I say that we will enter a premises that has a generic "gunbusters" sign or a "no guns allowed" sign or similar because it is legal to do so, not because we're trying to make some symbolic gesture. Unlike property owners that post these types of signs (I assume), we CHLees have studied the law as written and understand the requirements of the law. If the property owner doesn't follow the law by posting the correct sign, why should we be expected to interpret the owners' intended meaning of the legally invalid sign? I have no idea the exact legal intent behind a non-30.06 compliant sign specifically because it is non-compliant. In order to be enforceable under the law, the sign must be compliant - says so right there in the statute.

There are others who like you will not enter a premises that has any manner of "no guns" sign posted. For some, the mere fact that any anti-gun sign is posted is an affront to them and they prefer to take their business elsewhere. More power to ya. I don't disagree with that sentiment at all; I just don't follow it religiously. Because again - I don't know the intent of the person who posted a non-compliant sign. Perhaps they just want to appease the unthinking sheeple customers but don't want to actually exlude CHL customers? If their true intent is to prohibit a CHLee from carrying a gun into their establishment, then they need to "speak our language" as codified in law and post the compliant sign.

Then of course there are others who purposely look for loopholes and technical deficiencies in the law to push whatever position they prefer - be it pro-carry or anti-carry. Me personally, I WILL NOT walk past a non-compliant 30.06 sign for a technicality like letters not exactly one inch tall or or wording in English but not Spanish (I can't read Spanish anyway, but I can certainly read English - if I could only read Spanish, perhaps my reaction would be the opposite). Could I walk past a technically non-compliant sign and get away with it? Possibly. But this scenario puts me closer to your train of thought of - why bother/why risk it?

As Hoi Polloi indicates above, I think the reason to carry past a non-compliant sign has more to do with just living your day-to-day life than making some "statement" to the owners of the property. There really is no symbolic statement to be made - the sign is invalid, I don't know nor care what is the "intent" of the person who posted the sign so what "statement" could I possibly be making by carrying?

Anyway, everyone has to follow their own heart and mind.

IANAL

Hoi Polloi wrote:And the valid sign picture should have block letters (all caps) pointed out because that's a requirement as well which doesn't get much air play.

A requirement that the sign be in all caps is not included in the statute. "Block letters" is not the same as "all caps". Block letters generally just means no cursive or script style of type font.

Of course the "legal definition" of block letters is up to courts/judges and interpretation, but here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_letters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As long as the sign is not hand-written and not written in some difficult-to-decipher type font (like "Old English" or similar), I don't believe it matters if it's written with both upper case and lower case letters.