Or you might get a $200 fine that someone need to fight in court because an officer and DA don't agree with your definition of 30.06/30.07 all because the sign was hard to see and wasn't noticed. That ends in either paying the fine or hiring a lawyer to help fight it, which might end up costing more.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Clear glass is colorless, by definition. So it is impossible for the clear, colorless glass to be a "contrasting color" to the color of the sign lettering. The statute is clear enough as written, IMHO, and non-contrasting colors do not meet the requirements of the statute.WildBill wrote:I will issue a challenge to you. If you think that the 30.06 and 30.07 statutes are not clear, please write your own versions and post them.mr1337 wrote:I'm hoping this next session we can clarify 30.06 and 30.07 where contrasting colors means a non-transparent/translucent background. That would cut out a lot of the noise and make it easier for LTC holders to stay in compliance.
That said, it is a bit pointless to OC past any 30.07 type sign since you will likely just get effective notice as a result.
I didn't say that I didn't think the law wasn't clear, but we're still seeing white decals on transparent backgrounds, so it's obvious that someone isn't understanding the law, and that could come back to bite gun owners in a way that I described just above.
Now, I'm not even pretending to have any sort of inkling of what can or should get passed in 2017, it was more of a passing thought of hope to make the law more verbose so that innocent people don't have to deal with the hassle because some business owner mis-interpreted the law. I know there are bigger fish to fry in 2017 anyways, and I can't wait to watch it all unfold.
)
again....
...nah.