TexasCHLforum.com

A lot has been discussed about non-compliance and there seems to a be common thread among the replies that I think should be pointed out.

If the sign is not designed to the exact specification prescribed by law then the sign is de facto non-compliant. Period. The real question is what are those specifications...what do they require?...what do they prohibit (if anything)?...and as importantly what details are not specified and do not have a bearing on the question 'is the sign compliant?' Here are those specifications...

1. it must be a sign posted on the property,

2. it must include the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

3. it must appear appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and,

4. it must be is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public..

Period. A sign lacking any of those is non-compliant by definition. Any sign meeting those specs is compliant regardless of other things on the sign.

Let's list some things that are specifically prohibited...

(crickets....)

There are none.

So, here are some questions that one could ask about a sign that otherwise meets the specifications listed.

1. Is a sign whose background is painted in rainbow colors prohibited?

2. Is a sign with a anti-gun symbol included prohibited?

3. Is a sign with English, Spanish and Russian prohibited?

4. Is a sign with the Spanish to the left and English to the right prohibited.

In all the above the answer is no. If the sign meets the specifications and nothing else is specifically prohibited then there can be all kinds of signs! The only argument I can think of is if the sign, although containing the required specs, is so convoluted in its design to render it unreadable or confusing or contextually meaningless....you might be able use that as a defense.

But that's not the real question we want to answer. The real question is will an appellate court uphold a conviction where a non-compliant sign is an element to the conviction. Will the court require that a sign be absolutely compliant or will it rule that its non-compliance has no real effect to the issue of notification with is at the heart of the conviction.

To anyone who is willing to bet your bank account and future on a strict reliance on compliance should first go to the Texas law Library and research de minimis. First come to an understanding of how willing the courts have been to engage that doctrine then ask yourself to what degree a sign can be non-compliant and still give notice. This is the real world of statutory interpretation.

I can point to any sign and say dogmatically and without fear of contradiction whether it is compliant or non-compliant. Anyone can.

But can you say that the appellate court will reverse your conviction because the letters are only 7/8 ths inch or that the Spanish is not there???

Here is another thing to ponder...if you ask 20 Spanish speaking people to translate the English version into Spanish how many different versions of the wording do you think you'll get??? Ummm? Which one is the precise one to use? What is the precise Spanish language version that constitutes 'compliant'? That isn't specified. What does an appellate court do with that problem?

tex

C-dub wrote:

3dfxMM wrote: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

Interesting. I missed that second photo.

Ok. So what do we have here? It appears there are two signs. One in English and one in Spanish.

The rule says...

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

specifying a single sign. Now we are getting into splitting hairs. I still believe by definition that two separate signs, one in English and one in Spanish are each non-compliant with the rule. I still believe that that fact may well be a weak argument in a trial or appeals arena as to whether an English speaking person has been properly notified, all else being correct.

tex

And just to be clear,

assuming the lettering is 1", the lack of a Spanish version of the precise language is what makes this sign not strictly compliant, not the addition of the other irrelevant language. I'm also assuming that the sign is posted conspicuously and in clear view of the public.

tex

I will answer why I don't believe it is compliant by reposting what I wrote in another thread simply to keep from having to write it out again.


We are a nation of laws, as so many are fond of repeating. And true enough. We are indeed. That means that laws and regulations are to be followed as written. From a civil duty point of view, it is our adequate duty to follow the laws as written. We are under no obligation to go beyond the law. We have no requirement or duty to do 'a little extra' when following the law. We simply have to completely follow all aspects of the law, as written.

This does not mean that we can stretch meanings, push boundaries, fudge applications, or any other form of quasi obedient behavior. The law is black and white and our duty to comply is equally, and to the same extent, black and white.

The 30.06 statute defining the methods of notification (oral, written document, or signage) are some of the most clearly written rules one can find. Any cursory search of any statute or regulation will prove this. Higher courts including the Supreme courts of Texas and the United States have both supported the idea that a legislature's ability to know how to frame their words is fundamental and accepted by default (see Canons of Statutory Interpretations). No less than the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that a legislature is understood to have and credited with the ability to say what they mean and mean what they say.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "unless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir. 1994).

As the Supreme Court has explained: "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: `judicial inquiry is complete.' " Id."Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another." Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991).

The 30.06 statute says...

“Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language IDENTICAL to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgunlaw), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) INCLUDES the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

The Texas legislature knew what they were saying when they constructed that sentence. They cannot write a rule with that precision and expect that the public will 'deduce' that their intent was to include signage with language 'sort of like' it. Our duty is, and indeed we will be judged by, our adherence to the precision of the law. This does not mean fudging, or being sneaky, or resting our actions on misunderstanding. Nor does it mean that we are restricted beyond what the legislature intended.

1" means 1". No appellate court will uphold a criminal conviction when lettering is 3/4 of an inch. Nor any other discrepancy in the signage. Usually only when there is ambiguity where the appellate court must interpret what the legislature was intending will they make an interpretation. Otherwise, where the law is clear, in all cases I have researched on any subject, the higher courts will uphold the statute as written.

I'm not afraid of applying the statutes, precisely, as written. I won't be deceitful, or try to get away with anything, but I will follow the laws as they are. And I expect, and my experience tells me, that I will be judged by the laws, precisely, as written.

Where there is ambiguity one must use caution. But just because one claims there is ambiguity does not mean that there is, in fact, ambiguity. I have found that 95-98% of all laws that I have dealt with are black and white, unambiguous, and say what they mean and mean what they say.

It is up to each user of the law to be sure he understands what the law does say.

Assuming there is no Spanish version on the sign (we cant see the bottom) the sign you showed does not comply with the clear requirements of 30.06. A CHL holder is only concerned with the portion of the sign that begins with "Pursuant to...". The upper part has no gun-prohibiting force. Whether or not you want to obey this non-compliant sign based on the English portion of the sign being correct is, of course, up to you. Whether an appellate court will decide that leaving off the Spanish is good enough (for English speaking persons) is up in the air as I am unaware of any such current case law. My belief is that they might indeed uphold a conviction if you are English speaking in that they would conclude that you as an English speaking person have been properly notified with identical language as prescribed in 30.06 and that the lack of Spanish is de minimus, as it pertains to you. Whereas a Spanish speaking person can defend based on the lack of the Spanish version. How strictly a court will rule is always the question. Another argument can be made that the sign is non-compliant...period. I think an appellate court will find an English person resting his case on the fact that the sign does not have Spanish, yet otherwise correct, a thin argument.

tex

I believe that it is not compliant regardless of letter size.

tex