TexasCHLforum.com

TrueFlog wrote: This brings up a good question - what exactly does "block lettering" mean? Does it simply mean not-cursive, or does it mean something more, such as all-caps? Also, does the 1" requirement apply to all the letters? If a sign uses upper and lower case, a capital 'A' may be an inch tall whereas a lowercase 'a' may only be a half-inch. Would that make the sign unenforceable? (My employer recently posted 30.06's in the parking lot, but only the first letter of each sentence is capitalized, and only the capital letters are 1" high.)

IANAL, but if I saw a sign with 1-inch tall capital letters followed by 1/2 inch tall lower-cased letters I think I would say "close enough" and not enter. Why be the legal test case?

silverap1 wrote:Side Note:

I stopped going to AMC because of the 30.6 sign.

Anti-CHL businesses don't deserved my hard earn money.

Cinemark is the only movie theater I would go for a movie now.

Have you informed AMC of your decision and their lost business? Doesn't do much good to "silently" protest. A well-written, poignant letter to coroporate office stating your disagreement with their decision and boycott of their business probably won't do much, but it could get someone's attention. And if all of us write a letter, it could get more attention.

jimlongley wrote:The part that always bothers me about those "little" signs is that they may be held, by some activist judge, to meet 30.06 (c)(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or


Note the "OR" at the end.

Yes, it's a "sign" that doesn't meet (B) but it is a "written communication" on a "document" with the right language, which seems to me to be a very large and inconvenient loophole to be used against someone who passes it.

I don't fehave any problems about passing gunbusters signs, or improperly posted signs, or 30.05 signs like those at Dallas Love Field, but that little document in the window gives me pause.

Great point, Jim. Can you imagine fighting in court over this issue and having lawyers and judges arguing over the legal meaning of "a card or other document" while your freedom and future ability to obtain a legal CHL hang in the balance?

kauboy wrote: Yes, you are correct.
If "notice" was given, and a CHL carrier ignored it, that would be an offense.
However, the law states what "notice" is when a sign is used.

...

Therefore, "written communication" was not sufficient, and that means notice was not properly given.

Like I said, I love technicalities.

Kauboy, I agree with you. But the reply post to which I was responding stated:

But that is all he can do, even if the sign met all the specification of the law.

(emphasis added by me)

I was merely pointing out that IF the sign had met specs and IF you walk past such sign while carrying THEN you are in violation and you CAN BE arrested, not merely asked to leave as the above quoted portion seemed to indicate. Was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

JJVP wrote:... the owner from asking him to leave and he must comply. But that is all he can do, even if the sign met all the specification of the law.

IANAL, but I do not read the statute this way. I read it that IF there is a proper sign and IF you walk past that sign into the premises while carrying, THEN you have just committed an offense under the statute and can be arrested for Class A misdemeanor.

(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.

The relevant word above is "or", and section (A) applies if you walk past a proper 30.06 sign, not section (B)

Does this make sense? Do I have this right?

Something I've often wondered: Let's suppose somehow you were "caught" carrying inside this place with properly worded, but improperly sized sign. You're arrested (cop says "tell it to tha judge").

At what point does your "state of mind" come into play in a potential prosecution? Does the prosecutor have any legal ground to say "you knew that the owner of his property desired you not to bring a gun on premises, but you willfully did so anyway because of a minor technicality"

Probably wouldn't happen JUST for the carrying charge. But perhaps you needed to use your gun. Perhaps there is some question about the legality of that use of force/deadly force.

I know what everyone here will say "the law says it must be this large of type" etc. And I agree. But I'm wondering if by walking into a situation that is THAT CLOSE to the line - proper wording, proper placement, just improper size - you're opening yourself up to some "lawyer tricks".

If I'm a prosecutor I would say "the reason for the specificity of the law is so the sign cannot be missed by people entering the building. But YOU SIR, admitted on http://www.texaschlforum.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that you in fact DID IN FACT SEE the sign ... so why did you choose to ignore it?"

Anyway, I realize this is all getting to be a bit ridiculous in a Perry Mason/John Grisham kind of way. But just some random thoughts I've had before .... sort of a slippyer slope/Murphy's Law kind of worst-case scenario.