Is this 30.06 sign posted at Wholefoods compliant?

[cyphertext]

I believe that it is not compliant regardless of letter size.

tex

Why do you think that?

I, myself would have stopped reading after the first line where it stated it was about the alcohol and beverage code.

Careful. If you would walk past that sign and were somehow discovered you could loose your CHL. I would hope that my eyes would have been drawn to a few of the familiar elements of the sign and I would have recognized it.

This is why I question the validity... If the intent of the law was to make a standard sign that is easily recognizable by those who carry, then this sign appears to not follow that intent. The idea was for the sign to stick out and not be missed by the CHL holder. I probably would have stopped reading after the first line as well, as it appears to not apply to a CHL holder.

But, it does seem to meet the wording of the law... can't have it both ways, if we hold them to the standard set by the law, then the same standard applies for us as well...

[MeMelYup]

I believe that it is not compliant regardless of letter size.

tex

Why do you think that?

I, myself would have stopped reading after the first line where it stated it was about the alcohol and beverage code.

Careful. If you would walk past that sign and were somehow discovered you could loose your CHL. I would hope that my eyes would have been drawn to a few of the familiar elements of the sign and I would have recognized it.

This is why I question the validity... If the intent of the law was to make a standard sign that is easily recognizable by those who carry, then this sign appears to not follow that intent. The idea was for the sign to stick out and not be missed by the CHL holder. I probably would have stopped reading after the first line as well, as it appears to not apply to a CHL holder.

But, it does seem to meet the wording of the law... can't have it both ways, if we hold them to the standard set by the law, then the same standard applies for us as well...

To me, by having it as part of an alcohol sigh, and the way it is run together,it is not conspicuous. Also, 30.06 requires a sign in both English and Spanish. The spanish version if the sign is on a different sign which is allowed for the alcohol but not the 30.06.

[KD5NRH]

I'm with JMRA. I know what the law says. However, I'm not about to stand up in front of a jury (or judge) and say that the lettering was 1/4" off or whatever the technical issue was. It's like missing the forest for the trees.

Which is why you would argue that you didn't see the sign, then leave it to them to prove they have a valid sign meeting all the requirements, which they don't if the letters are too small.

This is why I question the validity... If the intent of the law was to make a standard sign that is easily recognizable by those who carry, then this sign appears to not follow that intent. The idea was for the sign to stick out and not be missed by the CHL holder. I probably would have stopped reading after the first line as well, as it appears to not apply to a CHL holder.

Correct. It's like a square, blue stop sign; there's a reason shapes and colors are standardized for important signage.

[thetexan]

I will answer why I don't believe it is compliant by reposting what I wrote in another thread simply to keep from having to write it out again.


We are a nation of laws, as so many are fond of repeating. And true enough. We are indeed. That means that laws and regulations are to be followed as written. From a civil duty point of view, it is our adequate duty to follow the laws as written. We are under no obligation to go beyond the law. We have no requirement or duty to do 'a little extra' when following the law. We simply have to completely follow all aspects of the law, as written.

This does not mean that we can stretch meanings, push boundaries, fudge applications, or any other form of quasi obedient behavior. The law is black and white and our duty to comply is equally, and to the same extent, black and white.

The 30.06 statute defining the methods of notification (oral, written document, or signage) are some of the most clearly written rules one can find. Any cursory search of any statute or regulation will prove this. Higher courts including the Supreme courts of Texas and the United States have both supported the idea that a legislature's ability to know how to frame their words is fundamental and accepted by default (see Canons of Statutory Interpretations). No less than the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that a legislature is understood to have and credited with the ability to say what they mean and mean what they say.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "unless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir. 1994).

As the Supreme Court has explained: "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: `judicial inquiry is complete.' " Id."Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another." Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991).

The 30.06 statute says...

“Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language IDENTICAL to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgunlaw), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) INCLUDES the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

The Texas legislature knew what they were saying when they constructed that sentence. They cannot write a rule with that precision and expect that the public will 'deduce' that their intent was to include signage with language 'sort of like' it. Our duty is, and indeed we will be judged by, our adherence to the precision of the law. This does not mean fudging, or being sneaky, or resting our actions on misunderstanding. Nor does it mean that we are restricted beyond what the legislature intended.

1" means 1". No appellate court will uphold a criminal conviction when lettering is 3/4 of an inch. Nor any other discrepancy in the signage. Usually only when there is ambiguity where the appellate court must interpret what the legislature was intending will they make an interpretation. Otherwise, where the law is clear, in all cases I have researched on any subject, the higher courts will uphold the statute as written.

I'm not afraid of applying the statutes, precisely, as written. I won't be deceitful, or try to get away with anything, but I will follow the laws as they are. And I expect, and my experience tells me, that I will be judged by the laws, precisely, as written.

Where there is ambiguity one must use caution. But just because one claims there is ambiguity does not mean that there is, in fact, ambiguity. I have found that 95-98% of all laws that I have dealt with are black and white, unambiguous, and say what they mean and mean what they say.

It is up to each user of the law to be sure he understands what the law does say.

Assuming there is no Spanish version on the sign (we cant see the bottom) the sign you showed does not comply with the clear requirements of 30.06. A CHL holder is only concerned with the portion of the sign that begins with "Pursuant to...". The upper part has no gun-prohibiting force. Whether or not you want to obey this non-compliant sign based on the English portion of the sign being correct is, of course, up to you. Whether an appellate court will decide that leaving off the Spanish is good enough (for English speaking persons) is up in the air as I am unaware of any such current case law. My belief is that they might indeed uphold a conviction if you are English speaking in that they would conclude that you as an English speaking person have been properly notified with identical language as prescribed in 30.06 and that the lack of Spanish is de minimus, as it pertains to you. Whereas a Spanish speaking person can defend based on the lack of the Spanish version. How strictly a court will rule is always the question. Another argument can be made that the sign is non-compliant...period. I think an appellate court will find an English person resting his case on the fact that the sign does not have Spanish, yet otherwise correct, a thin argument.

tex

[cb1000rider]

Tex, I agree with you 100%. I've also served on enough jurys to know that your average civilian might not care if the sign isn't exactly compliant.
I also don't trust DA's (in some counties) to come to their senses and not pursue it, nor do I trust law enforcement to have enough "reasonable" knowledge of the law to know (or care) that specific compliance is required.

I have a basic respect for the rights of property owners. It's their property, their rules (in most cases). My property? My rules.

[thetexan]

And just to be clear,

assuming the lettering is 1", the lack of a Spanish version of the precise language is what makes this sign not strictly compliant, not the addition of the other irrelevant language. I'm also assuming that the sign is posted conspicuously and in clear view of the public.

tex

[3dfxMM]

The OP stated in the fourth post in this thread that it was in Spanish also. He included a photo of the Spanish sign in that post.

[thetexan]

Interesting. I missed that second photo.

Ok. So what do we have here? It appears there are two signs. One in English and one in Spanish.

The rule says...

"...a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;"

specifying a single sign. Now we are getting into splitting hairs. I still believe by definition that two separate signs, one in English and one in Spanish are each non-compliant with the rule. I still believe that that fact may well be a weak argument in a trial or appeals arena as to whether an English speaking person has been properly notified, all else being correct.

tex

[dapark71]

I agree that taking a chance is not a good idea. I have taken another photo and placed a quarter next to the sign for your information.

[C-dub]

The OP stated in the fourth post in this thread that it was in Spanish also. He included a photo of the Spanish sign in that post.

Exactly, and there is nothing in the statute that says the English and Spanish text must be on the same sign. Just because it is not immediately recognizable to someone does not mean it is not conspicuously posted.

Everyone can make their own choice. YMMV

[Right2Carry]

I agree that taking a chance is not a good idea. I have taken another photo and placed a quarter next to the sign for your information.

My interpretation is it meets the intent of the law. I have better things to do then spend money in court.

[anygunanywhere]

Not compliant. Not worded exactly according to statute.

[thetexan]

The OP stated in the fourth post in this thread that it was in Spanish also. He included a photo of the Spanish sign in that post.

Exactly, and there is nothing in the statute that says the English and Spanish text must be on the same sign. Just because it is not immediately recognizable to someone does not mean it is not conspicuously posted.

Everyone can make their own choice. YMMV

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) INCLUDES the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

To me that says that "a" sign "will include" the language "in both" "English and Spanish". When I test my assumptions as to interpretation I simply ask myself, what would I have to write to ensure the meaning I'm assuming?

What would we have to change? Would we have to write "a single sign"? or does the phrase "a sign" suffice to describe a single sign? The other test is to point to a English only sign and ask...
a. is this a sign?......yes
b. does it include the language described by Paragraph (A)?.......yes
c. is it in both English and Spanish?.......no!

I firmly believe that the requirements for 30.06 signage compliance is crystal clear and unambiguous. The real question is this...if you as an English speaking person come across an non-compliant, English only version of a 30.06 sign that is all other respects is compliant, are you really prepared to rest your defense on the fact that the Spanish version was not there also? Are you willing to bet that a trial court or afterwards a appellate court will buy the argument that you have not been properly notified under 30.06 using your native language, English, simply because your non-native language equivalent was left off the sign?

Who knows?

tex

[epontius]

The signage is confusing in the least and I would say may not meet the requirements for "is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public."
I've been to the Whole Foods in the Domain twice in the last couple of months carrying, including just yesterday. I pay attention to the signage on the doors when I carry (and even when I don't carry). I glanced at this sign each time on my way in (it is partially covered when the door is open) and didn't recognize it as a 30.06. Thought it was the typical TABC sign. I'm always looking for "Pursuant to Section 30.06..." at the top left of the signage. By combining the two it is really, really confusing. As the TABC sign mentions "unlicensed" then that is negated by the 30.06 more than halfway down the sign. Seems to me that these should be separate signs. Post the 30.06 on its own sign on the front door. Post the 11.041 either lower down the door within its own sign or further into the entrance of the store.
I guess it is a reminder to myself to be more diligent in reading/deciphering these signs. I'm hesitant to just stand there reading a sign for several minutes as it just tells everyone around you that you might be carrying.
Since I refuse to be a victim, I won't be shopping there anymore as they don't want my business or that of other law abiding citizens.

[suthdj]

My take is if you have to ask if it is legal, then the intent is clear, they dont want your money.