Is this 30.06 sign posted at Wholefoods compliant?

[Keith B]

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?

Red top or left on the light. That is unless you run across this scenario

[thetexan]

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

[lfinsr]

I make it simple on myself. If the sign contains "30.06" and "Subchapter H, Chapter 411" anywhere on the sign, I presume they don't want my business and move along. I don't speak or read Spanish and therefore don't care what that part of it says.

Although I could probably afford legal costs, I'm not rich and would rather keep what I have rather than spend it on defense that has a weak argument to begin with.

I've watched these arguments take place on this and other forums, gun shows, ranges, etc., and I'm always wondering why? They're telling you in explicit terms they don't want your money. It's fun to argue sometimes though...

My 2 cents...

[C-dub]

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

I'm not so sure about the rainbow background. Might not be contrasting enough.