TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:A lot has been discussed about non-compliance and there seems to a be common thread among the replies that I think should be pointed out.

If the sign is not designed to the exact specification prescribed by law then the sign is de facto non-compliant. Period. The real question is what are those specifications...what do they require?...what do they prohibit (if anything)?...and as importantly what details are not specified and do not have a bearing on the question 'is the sign compliant?' Here are those specifications...

1. it must be a sign posted on the property,

2. it must include the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

3. it must appear appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and,

4. it must be is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public..

Period. A sign lacking any of those is non-compliant by definition. Any sign meeting those specs is compliant regardless of other things on the sign.

Let's list some things that are specifically prohibited...

(crickets....)

There are none.

So, here are some questions that one could ask about a sign that otherwise meets the specifications listed.

1. Is a sign whose background is painted in rainbow colors prohibited?

2. Is a sign with a anti-gun symbol included prohibited?

3. Is a sign with English, Spanish and Russian prohibited?

4. Is a sign with the Spanish to the left and English to the right prohibited.

In all the above the answer is no. If the sign meets the specifications and nothing else is specifically prohibited then there can be all kinds of signs! The only argument I can think of is if the sign, although containing the required specs, is so convoluted in its design to render it unreadable or confusing or contextually meaningless....you might be able use that as a defense.

But that's not the real question we want to answer. The real question is will an appellate court uphold a conviction where a non-compliant sign is an element to the conviction. Will the court require that a sign be absolutely compliant or will it rule that its non-compliance has no real effect to the issue of notification with is at the heart of the conviction.

To anyone who is willing to bet your bank account and future on a strict reliance on compliance should first go to the Texas law Library and research de minimis. First come to an understanding of how willing the courts have been to engage that doctrine then ask yourself to what degree a sign can be non-compliant and still give notice. This is the real world of statutory interpretation.

I can point to any sign and say dogmatically and without fear of contradiction whether it is compliant or non-compliant. Anyone can.

But can you say that the appellate court will reverse your conviction because the letters are only 7/8 ths inch or that the Spanish is not there???

Here is another thing to ponder...if you ask 20 Spanish speaking people to translate the English version into Spanish how many different versions of the wording do you think you'll get??? Ummm? Which one is the precise one to use? What is the precise Spanish language version that constitutes 'compliant'? That isn't specified. What does an appellate court do with that problem?

tex

sjfcontrol wrote:

jimlongley wrote: And then you get into colors that color blind people cannot distinguish. My brother in law cannot tell the difference between red and green, which would usually be considered contrasting colors.

How does he know what to do at a stoplight?

rivertripper wrote:Thanks Keith, but wouldn't that make every printed matter "contrasting colors"?

Regretably, the DPS does not promulgate the signs; also, there probably is no
Texas case law on this.

At a minimum, I do understand the principle of - you can beat the rap but not the ride.

rivertripper wrote:If you see a "real" 30.06 sign it is the lettering that is contrasting
as between English and Spanish, generally the English in one color
and the Spanish in the other

The statute calls for a "sign posted on the property that...
includes the language described in paragraph a...
in both English and Spanish...
and appears in contrasting colors...
block letters...
at least one inch in height...
is displayed in a conspicuous manner...
clearly visible to the public

rivertripper wrote:The 30.06 required language in the English and Spanish are in the SAME color, not
contrasting.

epontius wrote:I asked a lawyer that specializes in CHL and 2nd amendment issues/cases and provided a picture of the sign.
They said:

Though that sign is sort of a mix of different restrictions, there is enough 30.06 language there to create a fact issue as to whether or not you had “effective notice” that CHL holders are prohibited from carrying. Remember, a 30.06 does not have to be 100% perfect IF a jury looks at it and determines you had effective notice of the prohibition. Based on that specific sign, I recommend you leave your firearm in the car, or simply refuse to give them your business.

So even though by the letter of the law a sign may not be 100% technically correct, it's up to the jury as to whether it's "effective notice".

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

Trying to claim that the letters applied to glass are individual letters and not a sign is an even further stretch than saying that there are two separate signs, one in English and one in Spanish, while the statute says "a sign." The glass becomes the sign. All the letters on a piece of paper or poster board are also separate. However, I'll consider that you were also just trying to be over the top to prove a point.

This is also the first time I've considered the issue of two separate signs possibly not meeting the law. That is also why I've stated that I would not want to rely on that as a defense.

How is applying 2 pieces of paper to the glass different than applying a large number of all seperate letters? The argument seems to be because it doesn't look like one piece it somehow invalid seems a stretch. Invalid due to poor sign making?
So if they pushed the seperate pieces together so the didn't show as much gap it would be valid? You are right it was an attempt to make a point but the logic is the same.

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jlrockboy wrote:It is not compliant but, whole foods is telling you they do not want your business. I would shop some place else. I never shop in a store that posts, even if it is totally non-compliant like this bogus sign. To many other places that will take my money and my chl.

Actually, I will bet you would lose in a court case as it being compliant. It says the sign must include the language, but does not say it can't include other words or even another sign. It also doesn't say it has to be on one piece of sign board.

Really. Heck I've seen signs that separate the english and spanish and I've never heard of this argument before. Then there is the fact that when you apply vinyl to glass each letter is separate, the argument is astounding. I mean sure if you have to go to court you try any argument that might work no matter how big of a long shot but to think that it's likely ..........

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Not compliant. Not worded exactly according to statute.

Read again. It has the exact wording required it just also has other info added. If I was on a jury I would find it legal. That also ignores the fact that the judge would probably instruct the jury that as a matter of law the sign was correct.

If it has extra words than it is not exact. Pretty simple actually. Exact means exact not that it is okay to add more words, at least in most people's world.

thetexan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:The OP stated in the fourth post in this thread that it was in Spanish also. He included a photo of the Spanish sign in that post.

Exactly, and there is nothing in the statute that says the English and Spanish text must be on the same sign. Just because it is not immediately recognizable to someone does not mean it is not conspicuously posted.

Everyone can make their own choice. YMMV

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) INCLUDES the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

To me that says that "a" sign "will include" the language "in both" "English and Spanish". When I test my assumptions as to interpretation I simply ask myself, what would I have to write to ensure the meaning I'm assuming?

What would we have to change? Would we have to write "a single sign"? or does the phrase "a sign" suffice to describe a single sign? The other test is to point to a English only sign and ask...
a. is this a sign?......yes
b. does it include the language described by Paragraph (A)?.......yes
c. is it in both English and Spanish?.......no!

I firmly believe that the requirements for 30.06 signage compliance is crystal clear and unambiguous. The real question is this...if you as an English speaking person come across an non-compliant, English only version of a 30.06 sign that is all other respects is compliant, are you really prepared to rest your defense on the fact that the Spanish version was not there also? Are you willing to bet that a trial court or afterwards a appellate court will buy the argument that you have not been properly notified under 30.06 using your native language, English, simply because your non-native language equivalent was left off the sign?

Who knows?

tex

3dfxMM wrote:The OP stated in the fourth post in this thread that it was in Spanish also. He included a photo of the Spanish sign in that post.

MeMelYup wrote:

C-dub wrote:

thetexan wrote:I believe that it is not compliant regardless of letter size.

tex

Why do you think that?

I, myself would have stopped reading after the first line where it stated it was about the alcohol and beverage code.

thetexan wrote:I believe that it is not compliant regardless of letter size.

tex

cyphertext wrote:

RPBrown wrote:FYI, this is not a 30.06 sign. It is the standard (or somewhat standard) sign that TABC requires in locations that sell alcohol for off premises consumption, package sales.

You might want to go back and look at it again.... it is not either a standard TABC package sales sign, nor a standard 30.06 sign. It is a combination of both, which I would be surprised if either were legal. Not a lawyer, but I would bet that the signs have to be on separate, stand alone signs. I wouldn't even read the whole thing, as I would have read the top couple of lines and determined that the sign did not apply to me.