TexasCHLforum.com

chamberc wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 9:16 am
I work for a Fortune 100 company. Our attorneys believe white letter on glass will hold up in court and we post on all our buildings in this manner. I agree it's unlikely to be tested.

To me, the relevant question would be "what color is directly behind the glass?". If it's a white wall, then I'd simply present a picture in court and argue that the white lettering against a white backdrop is not "contrasting colors". But if there is something dark behind the white lettering then they might have a point. Most of the legal summaries I see on this paraphrase the requirement as "contrasts with the background", but the actual law says "appears in contrasting colors". Either way, since clear glass does not have a color, by definition, I think it is reasonable to say that the contrast would be with whatever background a viewer could see when they look at the sign.

Of course, unless your company's lawyers are also prosecutors, they won't have to argue this in a court.

chamberc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:10 am

LDB415 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 10:51 pm Lettering on glass is not a valid sign regardless of location. The rule requires contrasting colors. Glass is clear. It has no color. So it isn't a valid sign.

This has not been decided in court. At this point, it is only an opinion based on the reading of the law.

I agree this has not been tested in court. But I do think the law is pretty clear when it says "contrasting colors". It is a fact that clear glass does not have a color. IANAL, but I think that point would be pretty easy to prove in court. The only real argument I could see is if the color of whatever is beyond the glass contrasts with the color of the lettering. But to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor would have to able to prove exactly what was behind the glass at the precise moment that the LTC holder had the opportunity to look at it. Assuming black lettering, a lady wearing a white dress would be contrasting, but the same lady wearing a black dress would obviously not be contrasting.

This will likely remain an academic exercise since the odds of a case actually being brought to trial are extremely low given that all of the following would have to occur for that to happen:
-A concealed carry holder is somehow noticed to be carrying a gun (but the observer does not actually see the gun itself as that would fall under 30.07).
-The observer informs a person in control of the location about the gun (or they are that person)
-The person in control calls the police without first asking their customer to take the gun back to their car (refusing to leave after being asked is a separate offense)
-The police arrive while the customer is still at the location
-The police actually issue a citation instead of just telling the LTC holder that management wants them to leave
-A prosecutor decides to prosecute the offense
-The defendant decides to go to trial instead of just paying the fine
-The defendant is not a VESP, or other person with another defense to prosecution

I think I covered all of the necessary steps here, but may have missed one or more