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.
tex