Correct Scott. But we all accept that black is acceptable on a sign so I don't think the legal niceties of thinking it has to be a color really matter. How smart do you think our legislators are? They are still working on figuring out bathroom use. Technically speaking your phenotype (what sexual organs you are born with) may not be your genotype (what your chromosomes say you are). It is possible for someone that looks like a woman in every regard has the genetics of a male. Swyer syndrome and testicular feminization come to mind. More things for politicians to work on, but totally off topic.ScottDLS wrote:No. WHITE is all the (visible) spectrum combined...Pariah3j wrote:The Black color spectrum when talking about light spectrum is the absence of light - when talking about physical medium, black is all of the color spectrum combined.rotor wrote: Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Is it legal? Sign split in two...”
- Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:02 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Is it legal? Sign split in two...
- Replies: 39
- Views: 12189
Re: Is it legal? Sign split in two...
- Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:22 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Is it legal? Sign split in two...
- Replies: 39
- Views: 12189
Re: Is it legal? Sign split in two...
Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.LucasMcCain wrote:The question this raises for me is: are letter stickers on glass a sign? It's been questioned many times from the perspective of "contrasting colors," since "clear" isn't a color to most people. Run across any cases where this came up?thetexan wrote:I have been doing research for a book I am writing and in that process I have read and studied literally hundreds of appellate cases on various parts of our gun laws.
What I am learning...and I would not have guessed this...is that at the appellate level there is a much greater adherence to tiny details of the law than I expected. I used to think that "if it was pretty close" or insignificant that the court overlook these tiny discrepancies in favor of a greater legal principle.
I'm finding this to not be so much the case.
30.06 and 30.07 both say "a" sign. The article is singular. And the courts are very strict interpreters of the written statutes.
If the court were to allow two signs then the immediate problem that arises is how far may they be apart. 1 foot? 2 feet? Opposite sides of the door? Opposite sides of the building. Any ruling allowing separate signs leaves open ambiguities as to compliancy.
I'm not so sure they wouldn't consider two signs as non- compliant. Unless they ruled under some theory or principle, such as..."two signs within the same area of vision is essentially one sign. Or something like that.
tex