TexasCHLforum.com

KLB wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:the penalty [for speeding] is also higher when you consider insurance and other increased costs.

Well, you can take defensive driving. Sometimes apart from that, you can get deferred adjudication. That keeps the ticket off your record and thereby avoids bad insurance consequences. As for fees and fines, well, I guess I should have slowed down.

Yes I know all about the defensive driving option having just gotten a ticket, and I believe my total costs are going to be greater than $200 even with that option. I'm not sure about the average fine for a 30.06 violation but the max on that one is $200.

KLB wrote:

nimravus01 wrote:The way I am reading the law, I do not think a sign split (into anything other than one complete sign,) would be in compliance with the law.

A respectable argument, no doubt one most judges would listen to and consider. Whether it's consistently a winning argument is less clear to me. I intend to treat such signs as binding. Whether others do so is up to them. We each have different tolerances for risk. On criminal prosecutions, mine is pretty low ( I have been known to exceed the speed limit).

Speeding is much more dangerous. Speeding is a black and white violation of the law, as opposed to a risk that a law may be interpreted differently than it is written, the likelihood of getting caught speeding is higher, and the penalty is also higher when you consider insurance and other increased costs.

GEM-Texas wrote:Actually, most folks here have the mechanisms of perceiving something as white or black incorrect. However, the neurobiology isn't really relevant and I doubt will come up in court. An interesting issue is if you see a sign and do puzzle out that it is correct sign in terms of wording, I doubt your arguments about contrast and color would hold up as you have admitted to noticing its meaning.

It would be better to do away with such signs - start the property rights argument here - again.

So if I happen to speak German, then you are saying that a court would find me guilty for walking past a sign that had German, but no English wording? IANAL, but I'll take my chances on this and similar situations.

oljames3 wrote:As with most things in life, it comes down to which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Deciding to do anything involves a balance between the hope for a positive outcome and the fear of a negative outcome. Or in the case of carrying past a non-legit sign it is the fear of a small negative outcome (wrongly charged with an infraction that has a max penalty of a $200 fine) against the fear of a huge negative outcome (death or injury to you and your loved ones). Both of these outcomes have an extremely remote likelihood of occurrence as long as you are carrying concealed.

steveincowtown wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Not to nit pick, but we all get that this sign is legal no matter what. It has broken no laws.

Now whether it is "enforceable" may be up for debate.

Has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for carry past any sign? Especially 30.06? I have never heard of a case or seen a news story?

The sign may not have broken any laws, but if the sign is on government owned property, then it may be evidence of a criminal act by someone who illegally authorized the sign to be posted. Even in that case, the sign itself would not be guilty of a crime.

It actually not even a criminal act for someone to authorize a 30.06 sign to be posted on government property. It would be a whole lot cooler if the law was written that way!

You're right. It is a violation of the law, but not criminal, if I understand the distinction correctly. And I agree that it would be a huge improvement if the folks who authorized this violation of the law could be held criminally liable for the harm they inflict.

steveincowtown wrote:Not to nit pick, but we all get that this sign is legal no matter what. It has broken no laws.

Now whether it is "enforceable" may be up for debate.

Has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for carry past any sign? Especially 30.06? I have never heard of a case or seen a news story?

The sign may not have broken any laws, but if the sign is on government owned property, then it may be evidence of a criminal act by someone who illegally authorized the sign to be posted. Even in that case, the sign itself would not be guilty of a crime.

As far as something posted on clear glass, IANAL but I don't think that clear glass has color by anyone's definition, but you would naturally look at the color of the letters against whatever is directly behind that clear glass. There are some places that post white letters on clear glass where there is a white wall right behind that glass (signs are not next to the doors). Personally, I don't think that meets the requirement for "contrasting colors", and in all honesty they are extremely hard to see.

chamberc wrote:

sarn756 wrote:My daughter spotted a 30.06 sign today with the Spanish on the left side of the door and the English on the right side. I am assuming this to be legal...

Like most situations, it would have to be settled in court. To me, that's enough I wouldn't carry.

You do know that you could be arrested for literally anything, and that the final decision on your guilt would be settled in court, right? If this is the standard you are following, then you are running a risk of having to go to court by being alive, and a greater risk with every single action you take during the day, such as getting out of bed, etc. This is putting aside truly foolhardy things like daring to leave your home, of course.

The only way to truly avoid "taking the ride" is by being dead.