Incorrect Spanish on 30.06 signs?

[WildBill]

I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

Sure, a person in El Paso (actually, anywhere in Texas but El paso seems to be one of the likeliest places, the Rio Grande Valley is also highly probable) who only reads and writes Spanish (may understand English when spoken, but not literate in the language) can have a CHL and get stopped for violating a 30.06 sign that has poor translation on it. How he got caught is totally irrelevant to whether or not the sign would be valid.

Wouldn't the old adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse" apply?

[MoJo]

I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

Sure, a person in El Paso (actually, anywhere in Texas but El paso seems to be one of the likeliest places, the Rio Grande Valley is also highly probable) who only reads and writes Spanish (may understand English when spoken, but not literate in the language) can have a CHL and get stopped for violating a 30.06 sign that has poor translation on it. How he got caught is totally irrelevant to whether or not the sign would be valid.

Wouldn't the old adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse" apply?

Yes.

[Keith B]

One thing that many are overlooking is that translations are not always exactly word for word. You sometimes must use the literal translation to make something read correctly. In addition, there are dialects and variances that play into translations that must be taken into account, and often there are words in English that have no exact word in the other language.

In this case, since the statutes are written in English, if the sign meets the requirements in the English language portion, and since there is no exact requirement spelled out for the Spanish portion, then IMO any Judge is going to say that if it was close to the same meaning, it was good enough to get the message across as the rest of the sign did meet requirements. Trying to get by on a technicality is ALWAYS a risk and those that think Judges don't rule against people just because of a small technical loophole are many times mistaken.

[johnmed3]

oculto es oculto

LOL !!!