Is this 30.06 sign posted at Wholefoods compliant?

[EEllis]

Not compliant. Not worded exactly according to statute.

Read again. It has the exact wording required it just also has other info added. If I was on a jury I would find it legal. That also ignores the fact that the judge would probably instruct the jury that as a matter of law the sign was correct.

[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

(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

Your point about "a sign" versus "signs" is an interesting one and grammatically correct. However, that is a very narrow margin that I won't be counting on.

[SRH78]

Is the signage technically correct? IMO, no, it isn't. The fact that it is even debatable points to the idiocy of the person who came up with the sign. When the law is clear and standard signage is readily available, why make the situation complicated?

Now, does the sign have to be correct for it to cost you dearly for carrying past it? I think we can all agree the answer is no.

Personally, I don't see much point in worrying about whether the signage is truly enforceable because I will be darned if I am going to support a business that put such signage up.

[Scott Farkus]

If they are attempting to combine the required TABC blue sign with a voluntary 30.06 sign, they left out the language on the blue sign about the penalties for unlicensed possession (maximum 10 years in prison or $10,000 fine). Can they do that? Does TABC allow businesses to alter or omit any of the language on the blue sign (or the red signs for that matter)? Seems like a terrible precedent if so - a business shouldn't be able to just paraphrase whatever it wants and call it TABC compliant.

[jimlongley]

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.

While I agree that the signage is confusing, and will confess to walking past it until it was pointed out in this thread, because I never even saw the 30.06 portion, I also see the word "INCLUDES" in the statute, which does not exclude other language, nor does it state that it has to be the "top" language on the sign.

So I have let them know why I will not longer do business with them. We'll see if I get an answer.

[EEllis]

Is the signage technically correct? IMO, no, it isn't. The fact that it is even debatable points to the idiocy of the person who came up with the sign. When the law is clear and standard signage is readily available, why make the situation complicated?

I don't get this. It has all the verbiage needed and on it's face meets all the requirements. Could you make an argument about one thing or another? Sure but to say you think it's not valid without actually pointing to anything in law that is incorrect is strange. It hits every needed point in the law it needs to be valid so baring some judgment by a court or attorney general I fail to see how it could be anything but valid at this time.

[epontius]

I think by the letter of the law it meets the requirements for written notice in regards to the verbiage. But I think that the intent of "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" would suggest that the law requires it to be easily noticed by persons entering the business. My fault was that I did not continue to read the sign after seeing the TABC "giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code." You see these TABC signs on any business selling alcohol as required by law. I was looking for a specific and separate 30.06 sign that was "conspicuous".

On a side note, I'm surprised that the TABC law doesn't have provisions for the 30.06, such as further qualifying that it may be unlawful if a 30.06 is present. No doubt the absence of such a thing caused them to come up with this convoluted allowed/not allowed sign.

[anygunanywhere]

Not compliant. Not worded exactly according to statute.

Read again. It has the exact wording required it just also has other info added. If I was on a jury I would find it legal. That also ignores the fact that the judge would probably instruct the jury that as a matter of law the sign was correct.

If it has extra words than it is not exact. Pretty simple actually. Exact means exact not that it is okay to add more words, at least in most people's world.

[epontius]

If it has extra words than it is not exact. Pretty simple actually. Exact means exact not that it is okay to add more words, at least in most people's world.

I'm guessing where this would lose ground in a court would be the word "includes":

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

They may not have intended it to be as Whole Foods has interpreted it to be but Whole Foods does have a sign posted that "includes" the specific wording. Perhaps it should have been worded as a sign that is limited to the language described or some other verbiage to denote that the sign can only contain that specific text. Seems like these laws are never specific enough.

[oohrah]

If they have not posted the correct TABC Blue sign, you should report them to the TABC.

[C-dub]

Not compliant. Not worded exactly according to statute.

Read again. It has the exact wording required it just also has other info added. If I was on a jury I would find it legal. That also ignores the fact that the judge would probably instruct the jury that as a matter of law the sign was correct.

If it has extra words than it is not exact. Pretty simple actually. Exact means exact not that it is okay to add more words, at least in most people's world.

It does have exactly those words in the correct order without any other words in between. It also has other words. It has also been pointed out that the statue says a sign that includes that wording. That implicitly implies that the sign may contain other words and not be solely comprised of the 30.06 wording. I think thetexan may have the only valid point here that the statute says "a sign" that includes all these elements that could remotely invalidate this sign because there are two separate signs. One in English and another one with the Spanish version. However, as I mentioned before, that is a pretty thin distinction that I wouldn't want to rely on in court.

[Oldgringo]

I know others will disagree, but if it is big enough to catch my attention and it has close to the correct wording, I'm not breaking out a ruler. There are very few places that are the sole providers of items I need to purchase. This for the most part means I have an option to go elsewhere.

Legally perfect or not, they are clearly signaling that they neither need nor want my business.

[SRH78]

Is the signage technically correct? IMO, no, it isn't. The fact that it is even debatable points to the idiocy of the person who came up with the sign. When the law is clear and standard signage is readily available, why make the situation complicated?

I don't get this. It has all the verbiage needed and on it's face meets all the requirements. Could you make an argument about one thing or another? Sure but to say you think it's not valid without actually pointing to anything in law that is incorrect is strange. It hits every needed point in the law it needs to be valid so baring some judgment by a court or attorney general I fail to see how it could be anything but valid at this time.

No, IT doesn't. THEY do. That is already been pointed out in this thread. That obviously wasn't the main point of my post, though. My point is that signage doesn't have to be correct to cost you and why would you support a business that doesn't care about our rights? I even stated that I don't see the point in worrying about whether or not the sign is correct. That said, what need is there to continue debating the legality of the sign?

Also, if you were running a business and wanted to prohibit legal concealed carry as well as comply with TABC, would you create some signage of your own that is of questionable legality or would you simply put up standard readily available signs that leave no questions as to their legality?

[epontius]

If they have not posted the correct TABC Blue sign, you should report them to the TABC.

The TABC law is not as specific as the 30.06:

Code: Select all

Sec. 11.041.  WARNING SIGN REQUIRED.  (a)  Each holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall display in a prominent place on the permit holder's premises a sign giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless the weapon is a concealed handgun the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(b)  The sign must be at least 6 inches high and 14 inches wide, must appear in contrasting colors, and shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.  The commission or administrator may require the permit holder to also display the sign in a language other than English if it can be observed or determined that a substantial portion of the expected customers speak the other language as their familiar language.

So they meet the TABC requirement for the sign.
The Section 411.204 mentioned is the "51%" identifies businesses that derive more than 51% income from the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption. Whole Foods can't post a 51% despite the fact they contain a bar and serve alcohol on-site, as that only constitutes a small amount of their income compared to sales of groceries.

[EEllis]

Is the signage technically correct? IMO, no, it isn't. The fact that it is even debatable points to the idiocy of the person who came up with the sign. When the law is clear and standard signage is readily available, why make the situation complicated?

I don't get this. It has all the verbiage needed and on it's face meets all the requirements. Could you make an argument about one thing or another? Sure but to say you think it's not valid without actually pointing to anything in law that is incorrect is strange. It hits every needed point in the law it needs to be valid so baring some judgment by a court or attorney general I fail to see how it could be anything but valid at this time.

No, IT doesn't. THEY do. That is already been pointed out in this thread. That obviously wasn't the main point of my post, though. My point is that signage doesn't have to be correct to cost you and why would you support a business that doesn't care about our rights? I even stated that I don't see the point in worrying about whether or not the sign is correct. That said, what need is there to continue debating the legality of the sign?

Also, if you were running a business and wanted to prohibit legal concealed carry as well as comply with TABC, would you create some signage of your own that is of questionable legality or would you simply put up standard readily available signs that leave no questions as to their legality?

It has been pointed out but in reality the idea that because it took 2 sheets because they didn't have a printer big enough to do it in one sheet somehow would make it non compliant is naive at best. The only reason it is even being considered is because there was nothing better to try and use to dispute the validity of the sign but that doesn't make it a "good" argument just an argument. For no one else would this be any kind of an issue just because we don't like to be disarmed we find what loopholes we can. Make no mistake though the idea that 2 pieces of paper somehow invalidate this as a 30.06 sign would be a hail Mary argument for someone who was being charged under 30.06, not anything else. You would have much better luck IMO with just apologizing if you were caught and explain that because the sign was worded so unusually you thought it was just a TABC sign and had nothing to do with 30.06. That might work once.