As we have said before, there is no case law on 30.06. So, anything we say here is only opinion - not actual fact. The sign we had as example in your renewal class was one in which the spanish translation was so poor as to not even make sense. So I would say, in that case, that a person who spoke only spanish would not have received effective notice. Don't get me started on the validity of a CHL for a person who does not speak english well enough to understand a 30.06 sign. That is another thread for another day.The Annoyed Man wrote:Ask Crossfire. When I took my renewal class a few months ago, we covered exactly this situation. If the wording is correct in english, but not correct in spanish (which is more often the case), then the sign is compliant for english speakers, but not compliant for spanish speakers.........and visa versa....if it is correct in spanish but not in english, then it is compliant for spanish speakers but not compliant for english speakers. I don't agree with that logic, but apparently that is how the law is currently interpreted and enforced by the courts, DPS, and anybody else that has authority in the matter.harrycallahan wrote:I am not sure you're correct. To be compliant it has to fit ALL of 30.06 and that includes both English and our brothers to the south, Spanish.The Annoyed Man wrote:TECHNICALLY, that sign is compliant for spanish speakers, and non-compliant for english speakers. But I agree that its intent is pretty clear, and I doubt that the typo would stand up in court as a defense to prosecution, as every other letter/word on the sign is compliant.
Like I said, ask Crossfire. I'm just the messenger.
Anyways... carry on. As before, it is all opinion at this point.