TexasCHLforum.com

Very hard to see since the glass is tinted. It is a 30.07 only and in english and spanish.

Since you saw it yes.

I would prefer more contrast, but I would conceal before entering.

oljames3 wrote:I would prefer more contrast, but I would conceal before entering.

This is similar to what they have at HEB stores, the only difference is the HEB is white lettering on clear glass still very difficult to see, and easily missed, but if you saw it, you knew the intent, I might notify management about the difficulty of seeing it but I wouldn't risk OC past it.

And I wouldn't OC in a bank anyway. At least no 30.06 is present. But still very hard to see. I would hate to be the guy that did OC because the sign is hard to see.

fast86gn wrote:Very hard to see since the glass is tinted. It is a 30.07 only and in english and spanish.

30.07sign.jpg

Of course it's legal. What law are they breaking by posting it? Unless they're a government entity, they can post whatever they want.

Now if it's a valid sign is a completely separate question. I would argue that since you saw it (and assuming it meets all other requirements for a 30.07 sign), then it's a valid sign. If you saw the sign (whether it's a valid 30.07 sign or not), then you already have notice they don't want you OCing in there. If you did see it and enter anyways, you have to assume one of two things will happen:

1) They give you verbal notification once you enter.
2) They call the police.

Neither of these are optimal for you.

In truth, it is no better and no worse than the 30.06,30.07 signs at most of the healthcare buildings and at one of the Sprouts that I've seen. If the Sprouts door is open, it is all but impossible to see their sign. Still, since there is nothing else about all of those signs that appears to make them invalid, I wouldn't take the risk of contrasting colors. Black on clear would likely be contrasting enough for a jury.

suthdj wrote:Since you saw it yes.

WHAT?????

You can't possibly have gone to a LTC course, paid any attention at all, and believe that!

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.

thetexan wrote:

suthdj wrote:Since you saw it yes.

WHAT?????

You can't possibly have gone they a LTC course, paid any attention at all, and believe that!

Its obvious he saw it he took a picture, other then contrasting colors it appears compliant as for the contrasting colors i have seen no definitions in the code. So i see no reason to assume it is not.

suthdj wrote:

thetexan wrote:

suthdj wrote:Since you saw it yes.

WHAT?????

You can't possibly have gone they a LTC course, paid any attention at all, and believe that!

Its obvious he saw it he took a picture, other then contrasting colors it appears compliant as for the contrasting colors i have seen no definitions in the code. So i see no reason to assume it is not.

As Ronald Reagan so famously said: "There you go again!"

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.

thetexan wrote:

suthdj wrote:Since you saw it yes.

WHAT?????
You can't possibly have gone they a LTC course, paid any attention at all, and believe that!

I will issue a challenge to both of you. If you think that the 30.06 and 30.07 statutes are not clear, please write your own versions and post them.

WildBill wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. I'm not weighing in on whether they are compliant. I was just talking about the statement "if you saw them then yes" as if seeing them makes them legal.

Or maybe you were saying that since they are legal then all that's left to complete the notification is that you see them.

But that am cant be it because notification does not require one seeing the sign.

Holy slap me in the face with a compliant sign Batman!

Yes. That is a compliant sign! Good grief! These circular discussions are turning into a circular firing squad!

(note to add: these circular debates can get really funny. )