TexasCHLforum.com

In my work as an aviation and air traffic instructor I spend the majority of my time teaching fairly complex rules. I also use those interpretations in investigations that I am involved with. I am constantly told this..."I heard that you have to...". or, "that guys said you're supposed to...", or, when I ask a question of clarification of a student I will get a reply like..."you have to do such and such...".

When you hear words or phrases like 'you have to', 'you can't', 'he has to', 'I'm supposed to' the person is saying that there is a rule that makes that so. Everytime you hear can't, must, have to, supposed to, got to, they are implying that there is a rule that says so and a red flag should go up in your mind alerting you to seek out the rule referred to or to dismiss it as lore.

Here is the 30.06 rule regarding using a notifying sign as 'written communication'...

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;


If you are charged with a violation that involves a 30.06 sign a prosecutor will have to prove the elements of the statute he accuses you of violating. In this case, with graphics attached, here is what he will have to prove regarding the construction and placement of the sign.

1. That the sign in question posted on the property
2. That it DID INCLUDE the language in Paragraph (A) which is...

“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 handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

3. That the language appeared in both English and Spanish
4. That the letters are in block form
5. That the letters are in contrasting colors (presumably in contrast to the background rather than themselves. It doesn't specify)
6. That the letters are at least one inch in height.

or rather, you will try to prove your defense that they are not and the prosecutor will take that challenge and try to prove otherwise trying to substantiate that you were indeed in violation.

30.06 says nothing more about the design of the sign. It doesn't state that the English portion must come first followed by the Spanish. A sign where the Spanish comes first satisfies the 6 elements. A sign with Spanish first followed by a picture of Micky Mouse followed by the English satisfies the 6 elements. A sign with different contrasting colored letters against a white background (as long as each color meets the standard of contrast) satisfies the 6 elements. Notice it says "appears in contrasting colorS").

My research has found no appellate case law on this subject. That is not to say that lower trial courts have found someone guilty because the letters were 3/4 inch tall and the defendant declined to appeal. Until the upper court rules on the law it's up to each trial court's interpretation and application of the statute as it sees it, so always beware when cutting fine hairs.

In addition, as to proper notice the property placement portion of the rule requires first that the sign meets the above requirements AND...

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

The two elements here are...\

1. the sign must displayed in a conspicuous manner, and
2. that display must be clearly visible to the public

The fact that it is stated that way implies that it is possible to be clearly visible to the public yet not conspicuously displayed or vise versa. A quick tour of numerous Texas statutes including banking, business, car dealerships all use this term and interpret the word conspicuous the same way. Paraphrased, conspicuously displayed, when used in these Titles seems to mean displayed in such a way that a reasonable person is likely to see it at the time or position in which that person needs or requires the use of the information displayed on it. If you accept that definition then you can see that it is possible to have a sign visible to the public while at the same time not conspicuously displayed to be useful as a informational sign to that public. The example of a mall sign posted at a couple of places on the outside of the mall yet nowhere near the Sears entrance comes to mind. Again, you interpret these things at your own risk but I fully believe that if any of this were tested at the appeals level a strict reading of the law would result.

tex