TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote: They are not very different nor am I arguing that they are. I am saying that to try and use either as a defense is extremely weak and I would use neither. I am also not one of the folks using the argument that because the sign(s) in the OP don't look like what we normally see that they are not valid. If you'll notice, I'm one of the first back on page one that is arguing that these do meet the elements of a valid sign and have continued to do so.

I got it

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. I says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

I think you are arguing with a point I agree with you on. I say there is no definition of how the signs must be laid out, so as long as the language is there and the points of the law are met, then the letters on glass, seperate englsih and spanish signs on different sides of the door, etc are all valid IMO.

Not arguing, I was trying to support your comments. My bad

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

Trying to claim that the letters applied to glass are individual letters and not a sign is an even further stretch than saying that there are two separate signs, one in English and one in Spanish, while the statute says "a sign." The glass becomes the sign. All the letters on a piece of paper or poster board are also separate. However, I'll consider that you were also just trying to be over the top to prove a point.

This is also the first time I've considered the issue of two separate signs possibly not meeting the law. That is also why I've stated that I would not want to rely on that as a defense.

How is applying 2 pieces of paper to the glass different than applying a large number of all seperate letters? The argument seems to be because it doesn't look like one piece it somehow invalid seems a stretch. Invalid due to poor sign making?
So if they pushed the seperate pieces together so the didn't show as much gap it would be valid? You are right it was an attempt to make a point but the logic is the same.

SRH78 wrote: You sure like to try and argue huh? How convenient are these unnecessary posts arguing semantics and theorizing how a non-existent court case might possibly play out? Don't worry, we will all check with you in the future before we have an opinion.

Wait a second you are saying I'm "trying" to argue? And you are what?


I think you have been shown wrong quite enough, there doesn't seem to be a need to rehash so I'll leave it alone.

Keith B wrote:

jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

SRH78 wrote: When did I ever suggest that it was a good idea to challenge the signage? Please show me.

No you stated that it was an invalid sign. So no you didn"t say go challenge it but I think my responce was appropriate to your comment. If you don't feel free to ignore.

Couldn't find it, huh? I said that IMO, the sign is not technically correct. That is because it is physically 2 separate signs. I also said carrying past it would likely cost you dearly and I wouldn't carry past it. So, what exactly is your argument?

Yes you said it was incorrect, but why? It has everything that would be needed by law. That is my point. It isn't some trick that would allow the cops to bust you even if they shouldn't. My point was I didn't get why people were going on like the sign should be considered invalid. That was my point and what I addressed. No argument just that the sign is valid and your "but it's 2 sheets" has no legal basis.

BTW, you conveniently ignored my question.

Cuz I didn't care and it has zero effect on any legal argument. I addressed a legal point and didn't feel like worrying about the mental state of some merchant. The convenience of that was solely about not discussing something entirely pointless to anything I said.

SRH78 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

SRH78 wrote: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.

SRH78 wrote: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.

anygunanywhere wrote: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.