Are "split" signs legal???

[Ruark]

So in your opinion, two signs separated by 25 feet constitutes "a sign"? What if they were 40 feet apart? 60? 80? 100? At what point would you stop calling it "a sign"?

At this point you are trying any twisted angle to start an argument. There are reasonable exceptions and unrealistic arguments. Stop trying to pick a fight and discuss logically or drop the discussion.

You're the one who's trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to ask a VERY VERY simple question, although I realize your answers are ultimately just opinion.

Let me repeat the original question.

The law states "a sign... which includes.... both English and Spanish..."

Given that a sign which includes ONLY one language isn't legal (although I'd never carry past one), do two "single signs," one English and one Spanish, 25 feet apart meet the requirement? Can we just answer this "yes, because...." or "no, because...."? Is that asking too much?

[ScottDLS]

publicly open privately owned property...like a store open to the general public or a restaurant.

Not someone's house or private land not generally open to the public.

I think it would fall under the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Property owners do not need to prove a reason to ask you to leave, all they need to do is ask you to leave. Refusal becomes a trespass.

Sure but we're talking about the moral question of is it right to enter a business that is improperly posted, while concealing. It's not trespass if it's not posted correctly. I might not "want" any Republicans entering my shop and I can even post a sign saying so, but I don't find it morally wrong for someone to ignore my prejudices. Now if they wear a McCain 2008 Shirt I can ask them to leave, but I still don't see how they're violating my "rights", especially if they keep their political preferences hidden.

[Keith B]

Given that a sign which includes ONLY one language isn't legal (although I'd never carry past one), do two "single signs," one English and one Spanish, 25 feet apart meet the requirement? Can we just answer this "yes, because...." or "no, because...."? Is that asking too much?

Here's the deal; you want to try and twist an answer out of something that there is no legal precedence for. Until there is some case law you could make up all kinds of scenarios and 'what if's' to try and get to a black and white answer. There is not one for this, so until there is, then you must assume that split signs carry the weight of the law.

[thetexan]

While this discussion is entertaining it's usefulness to understanding the original point.

All of these interpretations are meaningless. The lower courts will each make their determination as to the interpretations of the law, how the law is applied in your criminal case, and the appellate court, if petitioned will either uphold or reject the lower court's application of the law in your case.

A split sign, better known on planet earth as two signs, is not compliant according to 30.06 or 30.07. English on one and Spanish on another separated by any distant is not compliant according to 30.06 and 30.07. The intent or the owner is irrelavent to the legal application of 30.06 and 30.07; your knowledge or understanding of the owner's intent has no relevance in whether you you commit an offense or not under 30.06 and 30.07.

And any iwner of private property has the right under law to determine who may access his property whether that property is public ally accessible or not.

Whether or not one decides to abide by the notifications of a private owner, required that one determine if proper notification has been given and may do so at his discretion. Each person is well advised to not listen to the guesswork of others for their own decisions.

tex

[Keith B]

While this discussion is entertaining it's usefulness to understanding the original point.

All of these interpretations are meaningless. The lower courts will each make their determination as to the interpretations of the law, how the law is applied in your criminal case, and the appellate court, if petitioned will either uphold or reject the lower court's application of the law in your case.

A split sign, better known on planet earth as two signs, is not compliant according to 30.06 or 30.07. English on one and Spanish on another separated by any distant is not compliant according to 30.06 and 30.07. The intent or the owner is irrelavent to the legal application of 30.06 and 30.07; your knowledge or understanding of the owner's intent has no relevance in whether you you commit an offense or not under 30.06 and 30.07.

And any iwner of private property has the right under law to determine who may access his property whether that property is public ally accessible or not.

Whether or not one decides to abide by the notifications of a private owner, required that one determine if proper notification has been given and may do so at his discretion. Each person is well advised to not listen to the guesswork of others for their own decisions.

tex

And your last line contradicts your middle paragraph. So, until a determination is made in the courts and case law established, you best bet is to sayt a split sign MAY meet the law and could be determined legal in court.

[thetexan]

Here is the logic that covers this...

You can come up with 10000 variations of the law and claim that until someone has ruled that it is just as valid as the next guy's variation. There is only one problem with this, there are a set of rules by which statutes are interpreted. Most of the people engaged in some of these silly arguments are not aware of these rules and have not studied them much less operationally knowledgeable of these rules.

They are called the canons of statutory interpretation and are established by and used by the courts to determine the meaning of the rules legislators write. In fact the canons of statutory interpretation guide the legislators in the very writing of these statutes since they know their statutes will be interpreted by them.

We don't have to guess what conspicuous means, we don't have to guess what the phrase "a sign" means, we don't have to wonder what the word "property" means on a 30.06 sign, and we don't have to guess what an owner's intent is or if it even has any relevance in a statute.

It would do a lot of good if everyone would do a little homework and basic study of the law and statutory interpretation if they intend on intelligently engaging in debates on the law.

tex

[Keith B]

Here is the logic that covers this...

You can come up with 10000 variations of the law and claim that until someone has ruled that it is just as valid as the next guy's variation. There is only one problem with this, there are a set of rules by which statutes are interpreted. Most of the people engaged in some of these silly arguments are not aware of these rules and have not studied them much less operationally knowledgeable of these rules.

They are called the canons of statutory interpretation and are established by and used by the courts to determine the meaning of the rules legislators write. In fact the canons of statutory interpretation guide the legislators in the very writing of these statutes since they know their statutes will be interpreted by them.

We don't have to guess what conspicuous means, we don't have to guess what the phrase "a sign" means, we don't have to wonder what the word "property" means on a 30.06 sign, and we don't have to guess what an owner's intent is or if it even has any relevance in a statute.

It would do a lot of good if everyone would do a little homework and basic study of the law and statutory interpretation if they intend on intelligently engaging in debates on the law.

tex

OK, is this a sign or signs?



And is this one sign, or seven?



It is up to canons of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning. Since they are attached to one structure, they could be considered one sign. Same with attached to the building. I will be when they apply for a permit to put up signage, they only get one permit no matter how many seperate letters they have for the 'sign'.

[thetexan]

The problem I have with your example and all other interpretations is that they are YOUR interpretations which you have a right to make FOR YOURSELF. But we must be careful not to assert that your interpretation is anything more than that, an interpretation. Since you do not have any authority to legally make the determination for everyone else, we are are left with going back to the statute itself to determine what it means for ourselves, especially since we are each responsible for that interpretation and how we apply it in our own lives.

You have a great interpretation. Maybe it's correct. Maybe it is not. And still Ole Man Statute just keeps on rollin along, unabridged, unchanged and uneffected by your interpretation of what it says.

tex

[Keith B]

The problem I have with your example and all other interpretations is that they are YOUR interpretations which you have a right to make FOR YOURSELF. But we must be careful not to assert that your interpretation is anything more than that, an interpretation. Since you do not have any authority to legally make the determination for everyone else, we are are left with going back to the statute itself to determine what it means for ourselves, especially since we are each responsible for that interpretation and how we apply it in our own lives.

You have a great interpretation. Maybe it's correct. Maybe it is not. And still Ole Man Statute just keeps on rollin along, unabridged, unchanged and uneffected by your interpretation of what it says.

tex

What I am saying is that NO ONE here knows what is and what is not legally a 'sign' in the eyes of the law/courts with respect to 30.06/30.07. SO, you can make your own determinations, but suggest you ere on the side of caution and NOT pass a 'split sign' that meets the requirements of size and wording.

End of my interaction on this topic. Which has run its course I believe.

[gljjt]

Here is the logic that covers this...

You can come up with 10000 variations of the law and claim that until someone has ruled that it is just as valid as the next guy's variation. There is only one problem with this, there are a set of rules by which statutes are interpreted. Most of the people engaged in some of these silly arguments are not aware of these rules and have not studied them much less operationally knowledgeable of these rules.

They are called the canons of statutory interpretation and are established by and used by the courts to determine the meaning of the rules legislators write. In fact the canons of statutory interpretation guide the legislators in the very writing of these statutes since they know their statutes will be interpreted by them.

We don't have to guess what conspicuous means, we don't have to guess what the phrase "a sign" means, we don't have to wonder what the word "property" means on a 30.06 sign, and we don't have to guess what an owner's intent is or if it even has any relevance in a statute.

It would do a lot of good if everyone would do a little homework and basic study of the law and statutory interpretation if they intend on intelligently engaging in debates on the law.

tex

Yes. This is so cut and dry. A judge and jury couldn't possibly get it wrong. It never happens. No matter how strongly you believe you are correct, anything can happen. The cop, the lawyers, the judge and the jury will tell us what property is (by the way read the statute, 30.06 uses the definition of property in 30.05:

" a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden; "

It not as clear cut as you demand.

[thetexan]

Now we're getting somewhere....pardon me just a second as I say..."YES!!!!! GO BRONCOS!"

I agree with everything you say generally. Things that are "questionable" will eventually (maybe, if it's appealed) be interpreted for us by the court. Until then we are left with our best guess. And there are many good analyses being given in this thread and others.

I am suggesting that everyone who wants to seriously engage in the debate is at an intellectual disadvantage if he doesn't do the legal research that is necessary to discuss it.

This is all an excellent exercise of our thought processes and even though we argue we are getting better and better at knowing the law.

tex

[Keith B]

....better at knowing the law.

Does anyone ever really 'know' the law? Seems like just when you think you do, you realize someone else has a different interpretation and he/she rules a different way.

[gljjt]

Now we're getting somewhere....pardon me just a second as I say..."YES!!!!! GO BRONCOS!"

I agree with everything you say generally. Things that are "questionable" will eventually (maybe, if it's appealed) be interpreted for us by the court. Until then we are left with our best guess. And there are many good analyses being given in this thread and others.

I am suggesting that everyone who wants to seriously engage in the debate is at an intellectual disadvantage if he doesn't do the legal research that is necessary to discuss it.

This is all an excellent exercise of our thought processes and even though we argue we are getting better and better at knowing the law.

tex

Agree! And..... We are all on the same side.

[brainman]

It is up to canons of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning. Since they are attached to one structure, they could be considered one sign. Same with attached to the building. I will be when they apply for a permit to put up signage, they only get one permit no matter how many seperate letters they have for the 'sign'.

I find your choice of plural pronouns ironic.

[Keith B]

It is up to canons of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning. Since they are attached to one structure, they could be considered one sign. Same with attached to the building. I will be when they apply for a permit to put up signage, they only get one permit no matter how many seperate letters they have for the 'sign'.

I find your choice of plural pronouns ironic.

Good observation. You passed my test.