TexasCHLforum.com

Hewlett-Packard in Houston is 30.06 compliant. This particular sign is posted at the guard shack as you enter the main campus.

I guess if you wanted to get real picky you could say there is an "i" missing in the word "prohibiting". Maybe the sign maker is a CHL holder.

The sign looks a bit small.
Are the letters at least 1" high? I can imagine it would be difficult to notice while driving.

Venus Pax wrote:The sign looks a bit small.
Are the letters at least 1" high? I can imagine it would be difficult to notice while driving.

I knew it wouldn't be long for someone to chime in with letters appear to be to small, or missing the I, or some other ridiculous observation of the sign. Simple fact is if you want to be a test case go right ahead and ignore the sign. I just hope you have plenty of money because that is what it is going to take to defend youself, if you get caught.

IMHO if you are caught and a LEO is called out he or she is not going to measure the sign to see if it is compliant, they will let a criminal court decide that aspect of it. Hey you might win the case and the only thing that will happen is you will lose your job and some legal fees. The fact is YOU WILL lose your job if caught, even if you are succesful in defending yourself against the criminal charge. Another thing to consider is that you will be fighting the criminal charge while unemployed.

Its not worth it to me to be the test case, but for all those who are just dying to prove themselves right about the little inconsistancies in these signs, good luck.

Fact is, you'll always lose a legal argument on the street. I'm pretty sure the letters are 1-inch or taller either way but that doesn't matter. I think the prosecutor could easily argue to a typical jury that the intent was obvious and the sign conspicuous enough that your should have known better.

With all of the bove.
I OFTEN remember what our own all wise Charles Cotton said about being a test case.
"Those on the cutting edge of law usually bleed to death financially."

Simmer down y'all! My first sentence right out of the gate was "HP is 30.06 compliant". I have no intention to challenge it. We all love the entertainment value of picking apart a sign denying us the right to carry.

longtooth wrote: With all of the bove.
I OFTEN remember what our own all wise Charles Cotton said about being a test case.
"Those on the cutting edge of law usually bleed to death financially."

This cuts both ways.

Sooner or later there will be a workplace shooting where a firm has banned CHL on their property.

This will open the firm to being sued for creating the conditions that led to the shooting by not allowing people to defend themselves.

This will go to trial and a jury will side with the families of the deceased.

The insurance costs will rise for firms that post signs due not only to the legal liability, but also to the acturarial analyses.

austin wrote:

longtooth wrote: With all of the bove.
I OFTEN remember what our own all wise Charles Cotton said about being a test case.
"Those on the cutting edge of law usually bleed to death financially."

This cuts both ways.

Sooner or later there will be a workplace shooting where a firm has banned CHL on their property.

This will open the firm to being sued for creating the conditions that led to the shooting by not allowing people to defend themselves.

This will go to trial and a jury will side with the families of the deceased.

The insurance costs will rise for firms that post signs due not only to the legal liability, but also to the acturarial analyses.

Actually it has already happened, it was at NASA in Houston recently.

HP in Richardson, Tx posts signage at the parking lot entrance as well.

Russell wrote:Hey!

Please post it at the 30.06 website! :)

http://www.texas3006.com

Done!

Here's the signage at HP in Richardson. It's in disrepair and the letters are peeling off, but the message is still the same.............

My point was not that a person should completely disregard the sign, but that it would be easy to drive past without noticing.

With respect to criminal charges and losing your job, my employer's opinion is that they do not have to prove criminal wrong doing to take administrative personnel action (e.g., fire you). My point being that if you want to challenge the criminal aspects of an employer's activity, it is often best to get a non-employee to be the test case. Good luck finding one (don't call me). Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Dang I've never seen that 30.06 sign & I go past the guard shack every morning, I guess Ill have to look better:oops:

Is it posted coming from Compaq center drive or coming from Louetta?