30.06 Posted at Hewlett-Packard - Pic!
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Topic author - Junior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:33 pm
30.06 Posted at Hewlett-Packard - Pic!
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.
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.
Texas2Step
Sig P229R
Sig P229R
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area
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.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.
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.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:14 pm
- Location: Somewhere between 200ft and 900ft (AGL)
- Contact:
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.
When you take the time out of your day to beat someone, it has a much longer lasting effect on their demeanor than simply shooting or tazing them.
G. C. Montgomery, Jr.
G. C. Montgomery, Jr.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 12329
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Angelina County
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."
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."
Carry 24-7 or guess right.
CHL Instructor. http://www.pdtraining.us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NRA/TSRA Life Member - TFC Member #11
-
Topic author - Junior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:33 pm
This cuts both ways.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."
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.
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area
Actually it has already happened, it was at NASA in Houston recently.austin wrote:This cuts both ways.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."
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.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:11 pm
- Location: Plano, Tx
HP in Richardson, Tx posts signage at the parking lot entrance as well.
http://www.berettaforum.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just remember: Your very best thinking got you where you are now!!!
Just remember: Your very best thinking got you where you are now!!!
-
Topic author - Junior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:33 pm
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:11 pm
- Location: Plano, Tx
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.............
http://www.berettaforum.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just remember: Your very best thinking got you where you are now!!!
Just remember: Your very best thinking got you where you are now!!!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:17 pm
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?