TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:There is a recurring disagreement on this forum about how careful we should be in avoiding legal behavior. Personally, I obey the law completely, even in areas where I believe the law is unconstitutional, but I will not voluntarily give up my right to carry where it is perfectly legal to do so. I may choose not to patronize a business based on my perception of the owners beliefs toward firearms or anything else, but if I do enter that business, I will be carrying if I can legally do so.

Care is yours to use at your discretion. The various states and perceptions of ambiguity, clarity, "almostness", "identicalness" etc are the purview of the ones who would sit in judgement of you.

I have told several youngsters thinking of getting tattoos on their arms and legs that doing so will have a very meaningful effect on your ability to be hired by many companies. The argument is almost always that why should they bow to the dictates of "the world". It's none of their business. Except, only, it is precisely their business and their prerogative to enforce and inflict their personal business standards (within the law, of course) upon the perspective applicant; a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face! The world really does dictate policy on many levels. We really do play the system's game. And it is certainly so in the legal system.

The law is the law. The interpretation of the law is the interpretation of the law. And the ones who sit in judgement, and the legal system we swim in gets to decide.

The application of care, or wisdom is certainly an individual choice. No arguments there.

tex

The Wall wrote:I personally don't care if it's written in crayons on a postage stamp. If I see it and read it, and it says no guns allowed I don't wear my gun. Or I don't go in. I think of it as going on private property and they have the right to not have guns on their property. The law and the signs just protect us from being arrested if we choose to ignore the property owners wishes and they don't have proper signage. People creating issues is why we have some of these stupid laws in the first place. Just my opinion.

As is your right. However, I expect the owner to abide by and be accountable to the same rules as I am. The owner has available to him, and is in fact bound by, rules that allow him to prohibit handguns on his property and those rules must be meticulously followed whether that private property is a home or a restaurant, else it is your rights that are being infringed. Trespass statutes, whether 30.05, 30.06, or 30.07, give that owner all of the tools necessary to make his prohibition(s). It is not too much to ask, and, in fact, I insist, that the owner live by the same statutes to uphold his rights as I do to uphold mine, especially since the very mechanism that upholds his right to prohibit is the same mechanism that restricts mine. And I require this of the owner by insisting that he inform me properly under the specifications set forth in 30.06 and 30.07. In fact, those statutes are one in the same.

The very rules that allow the owner to prohibit, also allow me to carry should the owner choose not to properly use those rules to prohibit. Same rules, same level of accountability for both the owner and the LTC. I'm not really interested in the owner's feelings on the subject of carrying guns . What I do care about is that he INFORM me LEGALLY BY STATUTE of his desire that no guns be carried on his property. That's on him. My responsibility is to respect those wishes ONCE I HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INFORMED, by law, as required in 30.06 and 30.07. The owner is no more entitled to a pass on strictly following the rules than I am.

Remember, it was the Texas State Legislature as elected representatives for owners as well as the LTCs that decided that the rules of informing be very precisely mandated. It was the Texas State Legislature that took any ambiguity out of the subject and who drew a razor sharp line in the sand. We stand either informed....or not informed, rolled eyes and convictions by the jury notwithstanding.

But this doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of what to do when we are informed improperly, does it?

Why should we allow a non-compliant sign to dictate policy to us? I'll tell you why, if at all. Again. The only valid reason (because we are within our rights to disregard a non-compliant sign otherwise) might be valorous DISCRETION seasoned with WISDOM!

It is your circumstance. Your possible legal hassle. Your rights at stake. Your discretion. Your accountability. Your application of wisdom. Your awareness of the legal system we live in.

Your decision.

tex

I agree with Scott...

The specifications in 30.06 and 30.07 are precise and razor sharp. As I said, as well as rotor and Janfoo, a sign is either compliant (as to design) or it is not. And the ability to make that distinction is not difficult.

A sign has either at least 1" lettering or it does not. It either has English wording "identical" to that prescribed or it does not. The Spanish equivalent is either present or it is not. The lettering is either block type or it is not.

The more iffy specs are a little more subjective. Is the lettering of contrasting colors? What about letter decals on clear glass? But since this is much less common than the stand-alone sign we don't have to worry about it as much. The requirement of conspicuousness and visibility are also more subjective.

So, if a sign is technically not to specs then the sign is therefore not compliant with the specifications mandated in the statute. If a sign has 1/8" letters it is not compliant. If it has 1/4" letters it is not compliant. If it has 15/16" letters IT IS NOT COMPLIANT to the specification in the statute. But at what point between 1/8" and 15/16" do you run the risk of the court saying "...enough! The difference is negligible?" You don't know.

So like so many other areas in our life we have to decide what we are willing to risk with our decisions.

But you are absolutely within your rights to hold to the sign to the utmost scrutiny as to specifications, in design and placement. But you realistically live in a world of judicial and prosecutorial discretion and so, as I previously advised, must temper your decisions with WISDOM.

As always, use well considered caution. Don't live in fear of violating a rule UNLESS THAT FEAR IS RIGHTFULLY JUSTIFIED BY YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE RULE! Know the law confidently and make your measured decisions accordingly.

tex

As rotor stated, the sign is either compliant or it is not. Whether the sign has any legal force depends, as per statute, on it's compliancy. And that compliancy has two parts...1) it's design, and 2) it's posting placement. If either of those or any parts therein are non-compliant (not to the specifications of the statute) then they, SUPPOSEDLY do not have legal force. But, as you will see, we live in a legal system of many possibilities.

Both 30.06 and 30.07 specify the precise wording that must be used and then requires that it be in both English and Spanish. Since the wording of the wording requirement is in English it is easy to know if any wording you may find is "identical" to the English requirement. But, since the wording in Spanish is a translation of that English version there is no clear "identical" Spanish version that I am aware of. I have seen different Spanish versions that I presume are close translations. But it would be difficult to put any of these Spanish versions to the "identical" test, especially since no Spanish wording is mandated but is left, by implication, to be translated by "someone". The legislature should have thought of that and specified the Spanish equivalent in the statute.

NOW THE THE REAL MEAT AND POTATOES OF THIS...

There is no case law that I am aware of concerning this subject so we are left to the reasonable interpretations of the rule and the knowledge that, until such time we are treated to an appellate ruling, we are at the mercy of the local courts, district attorneys, and juries to determine if a sign is compliant. When you add the nebulous deminimus doctrine to the mix deciding whether a sign is compliant and your willingness to make decisions based on that decision becomes more tedious.

An appellate court will be more strict in its review of the statutes because they are tasked with this one mission...to determine if the law was fairly and properly applied to your case. They are not finders of fact as the lower courts are. They simply determine whether the all aspects of the law, particularly those objected to at your trial, were applied properly.

The law is usually fairly cut and dried especially in 30.06 and 30.07. However there are several possible discrepancies that might be found to be deminimus in a lower court's rulings. Some of those might be...

1. Are letters 3/4 of an inch tall close enough to the required 1 inch to be considered deminimus to the deliberation? How about 7/8"?
2. Is the particular Spanish translation close enough to the prosecutor's expert's version to be considered deminimus? Does this even matter since you are a English speaking person and can clearly read the English version. The trial court might find that inconsistencies in the Spanish translation, or whether the Spanish is even present, deminimus to your case as an English person.
3. Is a misspelling of a word such as "30.60" rather than "30.06" a printing error, and is that error considered deminimus?

Then there are the old signs that read "...a person licensed under Article 4413 (29ee), Revised Statutes...". These are the old signs and are clearly and substantially not "identical". Are these substantially different enough? In this case, in my opinion, yes. For all I know there are persons licensed under Article 4413 (29ee), Revised Statutes (whatever that is...it could be some type of security agent or something) and since I am licensed under 411 Subchapter H then I might reasonably conclude that the sign must not be addressing itself to me. Or, the owner clearly didn't find it was necessary to comply with the current 30.06 requirements either because he didn't find it necessary to upgrade and comply with the current law or, worse, he didn't care. Or worse still, he is ignorant of the current law and his requirement to comply with it.

OR....could that be deminimus?

Until we have appellate interpretation we are at the mercy of over 2000 Texas district, municipal, and JP courts each of which may rule differently given the same facts.

However, signs such as gunbuster signs and the like are clearly not compliant and have no force of law. So be wise in your consideration of whether a sign is compliant especially if you decide that its perceived non-compliance is a defense to your walking past it.

tex