Oldgringo wrote:It was intended to be a thought provoking, not a 'smart aleck', question, JP71. Why would you take offense?JP171 wrote:meh! I doubt it but then they don't know all of them anyway we have seen that here time and time again and as is said concealed is concealed. so why the smart aleck question OG?Oldgringo wrote:All of the LEO's know this, do they?JP171 wrote:pancho wrote:The problem is how the people willing to be a test case for non-compliant 30.06 signs can challenge it in court without also violating the failure to conceal law. Meanwhile I'll take my chances and obey the letter and spirit of the law with a clear conscience.Oldgringo wrote:This question really needs an answer. There are probably more than a few individuals willing to challenge the issue in court; however, there are probably no lawyers willing to take the case pro bono?
there is no longer a failure to conceal in texas law it is now intentional display so no such thing to violate
ok I can accept that, it seemed a bit snarky that's all. yes I understand that not all officer would know the laws have changed as a lot of them don't know the law without changes, at times we can barely keep up with the changes and what they mean.