Charles L. Cotton wrote:In order to meet the requirements of 30.06, the sign must exactly meet the statutory specifications. If the sign is only in English, then it doesn't the requirements of 30.06 and should not be enforceable. Unlike civil statutes, penal statutes are interpreted far more narrowly, since life and liberty are at stake.
I am not aware of a case on this issue, but I will do some research. This is another situation where a LEO probably wouldn't make the arrest, if he/she were educated on the requirements of a 30.06 sign, and a reasonable DA would not accept charges. However, if a CHL was arrested for crossing such a sign and the DA accepted the charges, then the CHL would have to pay the tab to go to trial, and if found guilty, see if the appellate courts agree with my analysis.
As you can tell from several of my posts, I never suggest that anyone venture into uncharted waters, when it comes to testing the parameters of relatively new statutes. As a trial attorney, I love to be in court! I'll fight to the last drop of blood, but I am always aware that it's my clients' blood.
I wouldn't hesitate to cross a sign like you describe, but that's my decision, not legal advice to non-attorneys.
Regards,
Chas.
Charles,
I have been browsing this forum and I appreciate the work you have put into this and other CHL issues.
I am sure everyone else on these boards do too. I wish there was some way I could assist. The only way CHL holders can maintain our rights is to work together as a group to fight for our rights.