Off the wall 30.06 posting situation

[Bolton Strid]

You missed two very important steps:

Missed a third and actually foremost step - if the police bother to even respond at all. Unless there's an active disturbance with multiple calls chances are high stuff like that gets cleared or handled like a civil matter with a phone call by a patrol supervisor. Besides busybodies who can't mind their own business and cranks trying to retaliate on someone (whether there's really a gun or not), there's no enthusiasm for burning up time making a response on every such call. The larger the jurisdiction, the less likely a response, with shorthanded personnel, increasing workload with an increasingly lawless culture (some locales worse than others) that demands attention. The jurisdictions around me won't respond to "shots fired" calls unless there's a victim laying out in the street bleeding, or property damage - complainant wanting a report for insurance or liability purposes. It's a waste of time for them unless there's something really tangible to do.

[RPBrown]

My Understanding is the signs must be posted at the Entrances and they have to be visible from the parking lot!

Nothing in the law says this. For example, 30.06 just says:

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

As a general rule, I believe the signs can be posted anywhere in the building but only apply to the portions behind the sign.

Based on that, in my case where they were stand alone signs in English on 1 side and Spanish on the other, what would be considered behind the sign?

[srothstein]

My Understanding is the signs must be posted at the Entrances and they have to be visible from the parking lot!

Nothing in the law says this. For example, 30.06 just says:

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

As a general rule, I believe the signs can be posted anywhere in the building but only apply to the portions behind the sign.

Based on that, in my case where they were stand alone signs in English on 1 side and Spanish on the other, what would be considered behind the sign?

My understanding would be that anything between the entrance to the building and where you found the freestanding sign is not covered. It could prove an interesting defense if you truly were only able to read Spanish.

But this is a very gray area of the law, because what if you entered through a store entrance and it is not posted? I have done this in many malls. I enter through a department store and it is not posted. As I walk around the mall, I go to exit through a mall exit near the department store and see the sign. Am I supposed to assume I cannot go any further and turn around and carry back through the mall to go out the store I came in through? One of the tenets of the law is that it is supposed to be interpreted to make sense and that would not be sensible.

And then there is the question of does my new knowledge that the sign is there apply to the next visit? But what if I am visiting with a friend or relative and he is also an LTC and carrying? He has never seen the sign and thus is allowed to carry while I cannot? That also does not make sense to me.

I believe that the law was written with as much ambiguity as possible to cover the LTC while still allowing the business to feel better about posting to keep guns off their property. We know the requirements for the sign size and multiple signs was done specifically to discourage businesses from posting, so the ambiguity might be the same type of thing.

[chamberc]

Lettering on glass is not a valid sign regardless of location. The rule requires contrasting colors. Glass is clear. It has no color. So it isn't a valid sign.

This has not been decided in court. At this point, it is only an opinion based on the reading of the law.

I agree this has not been tested in court. But I do think the law is pretty clear when it says "contrasting colors". It is a fact that clear glass does not have a color. IANAL, but I think that point would be pretty easy to prove in court. The only real argument I could see is if the color of whatever is beyond the glass contrasts with the color of the lettering. But to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor would have to able to prove exactly what was behind the glass at the precise moment that the LTC holder had the opportunity to look at it. Assuming black lettering, a lady wearing a white dress would be contrasting, but the same lady wearing a black dress would obviously not be contrasting.

This will likely remain an academic exercise since the odds of a case actually being brought to trial are extremely low given that all of the following would have to occur for that to happen:
-A concealed carry holder is somehow noticed to be carrying a gun (but the observer does not actually see the gun itself as that would fall under 30.07).
-The observer informs a person in control of the location about the gun (or they are that person)
-The person in control calls the police without first asking their customer to take the gun back to their car (refusing to leave after being asked is a separate offense)
-The police arrive while the customer is still at the location
-The police actually issue a citation instead of just telling the LTC holder that management wants them to leave
-A prosecutor decides to prosecute the offense
-The defendant decides to go to trial instead of just paying the fine
-The defendant is not a VESP, or other person with another defense to prosecution

I think I covered all of the necessary steps here, but may have missed one or more

I work for a Fortune 100 company. Our attorneys believe white letter on glass will hold up in court and we post on all our buildings in this manner. I agree it's unlikely to be tested.

[crazy2medic]

Sprouts, which I haven't darkened their door in years but the last time I went into one they had black block lettering on dark tinted glass and you won't notice it unless A. Your looking for it or B. Your leaving and see it with daylight behind it!

[Dragonfighter]

Back when Toys R Us was still open, they had a "gunbuster" style sign. I use to chuckle to myself every time I walked past it. I swear, as long as I live I will never understand how any rational thinking human being can think that any "no guns allowed" sign will make them safer. Do these clowns really believe some guy wanting to commit a mass shooting or robbery is going to see that sign and decide he better not break that law while he was willing to break the law forbidding murder or armed robbery? I just can't get my head around that kind of thinking.

An ad endum to Hanlon's Razor reads, "Sufficient ignorance is indistinguishable from malice." I would have liked to meet Robert Hanlon. He sound's like an intelligent and hilarious man.

I can't find it but there was a political cartoon several years ago where a pair of heavily armed bad guys were standing outside a location with a "gunbuster" sign. One asks the other, "Now what do we do?" I couldn't find it or I'd paste it here. Kinda says it all.

[Soccerdad1995]

I work for a Fortune 100 company. Our attorneys believe white letter on glass will hold up in court and we post on all our buildings in this manner. I agree it's unlikely to be tested.

To me, the relevant question would be "what color is directly behind the glass?". If it's a white wall, then I'd simply present a picture in court and argue that the white lettering against a white backdrop is not "contrasting colors". But if there is something dark behind the white lettering then they might have a point. Most of the legal summaries I see on this paraphrase the requirement as "contrasts with the background", but the actual law says "appears in contrasting colors". Either way, since clear glass does not have a color, by definition, I think it is reasonable to say that the contrast would be with whatever background a viewer could see when they look at the sign.

Of course, unless your company's lawyers are also prosecutors, they won't have to argue this in a court.

[ScottDLS]

I work for a Fortune 100 company. Our attorneys believe white letter on glass will hold up in court and we post on all our buildings in this manner. I agree it's unlikely to be tested.

To me, the relevant question would be "what color is directly behind the glass?". If it's a white wall, then I'd simply present a picture in court and argue that the white lettering against a white backdrop is not "contrasting colors". But if there is something dark behind the white lettering then they might have a point. Most of the legal summaries I see on this paraphrase the requirement as "contrasts with the background", but the actual law says "appears in contrasting colors". Either way, since clear glass does not have a color, by definition, I think it is reasonable to say that the contrast would be with whatever background a viewer could see when they look at the sign.

Of course, unless your company's lawyers are also prosecutors, they won't have to argue this in a court.

To me the question is do I feel like carrying my gun in. If the answer is yes, I will carry.