TexasCHLforum.com

I'm having a hard time buying into the "intent" argument as it effectively nullifies the requirements specified in the law. In my layman's opinion, the law requires the business owner to abide by the law by posting specific signage that follows quite specific parameters. IF the business has followed the law, then we are also required to follow the same law by refraining to carry our weapons into their business. The only way both sides can be afforded equal justice under that law, is if both sides are required to abide by those parts of the law that apply to them. It is not logical that DPS can just deem a gun-buster sign to be lawful notice of intent, when the requirements for lawful notice are very clearly specified in the law. If the law was satisfied with just contrasting colors, it would not have detailed the minimum allowable size of lettering. The fact that different specifics are itemized, tells me that the law does, in fact, require the signs to follow each item specifically and does not merely ask for something close to show intent.

ScottDLS wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.

And I disagree with DPS. If the law says 55 and you get ticketed for 56, too bad, but likewise if the law says 1 inch and it's not . . .

Part of it is a where do you draw the line question. Last time I was at the 6th Floor Museum they had a little sign, about 3" x 5" and a metal detector and pointing out to them that their sign did not comply had absolutely no effect, it was their intent to keep out CHL holders. Plano Independent School District signs at the parking lots are under size, but according to my research they had them printed on a standard size sign to save money, and it is their intent to prevent CHL holders from entering. Consulting the local LEOs revealed that they intended to enforce the signs even if they were not compliant, which is what generated the call to DPS with the response that the intent was what they intended to enforce, not the law.

I, personally, would like to see language added to the law to the effect that signage that does not comply with the letter of the law will be considered null and void, or some such.

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.