Enforceable and/or Non-Compliant Signage

[Oldgringo]

I, for one, am not going to 'kick the hive' by crossing a 30.06 and/or 30.07 sign that may not be letter perfect. My resources are not only finite, they are too limited to pay a lawyer several hundred or a thousand to convince a judge that I am a really nice old guy and it's not my fault that I've been arrested. This is not about my rights, it is about my hard earned money, or lack thereof.

YMMV, have a nice day.

[ScottDLS]

I, for one, am not going to 'kick the hive' by crossing a 30.06 and/or 30.07 sign that may not be letter perfect. My resources are not only finite, they are too limited to pay a lawyer several hundred or a thousand to convince a judge that I am a really nice old guy and it's not my fault that I've been arrested. This is not about my rights, it is about my hard earned money, or lack thereof.

YMMV, have a nice day.

What about now that the penalty has been reduced to a $200 fine/no jail class C if you get WRONGLY PROSECUTED for walking past a non-compliant 30.06 sign? You can represent yourself in JP or municipal court, and you would only have to if you were somehow discovered CC'ing, AND the police were called, AND they cited or arrested you for the class C, even though the sign was non compliant.

30.07, speaks for itself compliant or not 99% you're gonna get verbal notice.

Now let me be clear here. I am saying I will walk by any non-compliant 30.06, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. That's because I won't have received proper notice. Not because it's only a class C.

[AJSully421]

I'll walk past a non-compliant 30.06 sign. I have to follow the law, and so do they.

30.07 is a non starter because you are going to get tossed or cops called for sure.

[Oldgringo]

I, for one, am not going to 'kick the hive' by crossing a 30.06 and/or 30.07 sign that may not be letter perfect. My resources are not only finite, they are too limited to pay a lawyer several hundred or a thousand to convince a judge that I am a really nice old guy and it's not my fault that I've been arrested. This is not about my rights, it is about my hard earned money, or lack thereof.

YMMV, have a nice day.

What about now that the penalty has been reduced to a $200 fine/no jail class C if you get WRONGLY PROSECUTED for walking past a non-compliant 30.06 sign? You can represent yourself in JP or municipal court, and you would only have to if you were somehow discovered CC'ing, AND the police were called, AND they cited or arrested you for the class C, even though the sign was non compliant.

30.07, speaks for itself compliant or not 99% you're gonna get verbal notice.

Now let me be clear here. I am saying I will walk by any non-compliant 30.06, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. That's because I won't have received proper notice. Not because it's only a class C.

Okay, have at it.

[thetexan]

You had better read up on the legal doctrine of de minimis and fully understand how that works before you start hanging your hat on a misspelled word or 7/8ths inch lettering. It is quite conceivable that a non-compliant sign might be deemed compliant using this argument. A trial court might find you guilty using his theory with the attitude that if you disagree you can take it up with your local appellate court.


Tex

[Jago668]

De minimis can also be used as a defense as well. So you could argue that no evil arose by you carrying past a non-compliant sign. At least from my limited reading on the topic. So if prosecution wants to play that game, just run it right back at them.

[Oldgringo]

Thanks guy$. All of thi$ 'court arguing' that y'all are doing co$t$ dollar$ and time. Keep u$ po$ted a$ to how it work$ out for you.

Me, I much prefer to $pend our dollar$ and time el$ewhere. My point provin' days are over. Good luck.

[anygunanywhere]

If this de minimis was actually a possibility then we should cower in fear of gun buster signs too.

[thetexan]

If this de minimis was actually a possibility then we should cower in fear of gun buster signs too.

One would be wise to understand the way the game is played before taking the field.

Clearly you do not understand the principle I am talking about to make that statement. Not only is a gum buster sign non compliant it's not even in that category.

And nowhere did I say to cower. You also don't read many of my posts on this subject.

Respect the rules of the game like you would respect the personal space of a rattle snake if you walked up on one. If you get too close to the edge you may get bit.

[anygunanywhere]

If this de minimis was actually a possibility then we should cower in fear of gun buster signs too.

One would be wise to understand the way the game is played before taking the field.

Clearly you do not understand the principle I am talking about to make that statement. Not only is a gum buster sign non compliant it's not even in that category.

And nowhere did I say to cower. You also don't read many of my posts on this subject.

Respect the rules of the game like you would respect the personal space of a rattle snake if you walked up on one. If you get too close to the edge you may get bit.

Please cite any instances where this was used to convict or even arrest any LTC in Texas for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

[Oldgringo]

Here we go again, more in-house public bickering and nit-picking.

Bloomberg did not get to be a gazillionaire by being stupid. He and his believers are probably well-versed in the concept of 'divide and conquer', you reckon?

[n5wd]

Here we go again, more in-house public bickering and nit-picking.

Well, look who started it!

[Oldgringo]

Here we go again, more in-house public bickering and nit-picking.

Well, look who started it!

It didn't take much, did it?

[thetexan]

I don't think there is any case law at all about this subject. You might be the first to go down in the books.

But there are red of case law where the doctrine of de minimus was a factor. I have done my research and I respectfully invite you to do the same before you make any legal decisions regarding carrying past signs.

Yes, a non-compliant sign factually does not meet the specifications mandate. The question is whether a court jurisdiction will allow small non-compliance in determining if you were actually notified. They have the authority in their discretion to do so. And you have the right to take that court's decision to an appellate court and see if they agree. Depending on the insignificance of the non-compliance they may uphold your conviction this establishing the official interpretation of the requirements as specified in 30.06 or .07.

De minimus. No one should get too cocky about walking past slightly incorrect signage.

tex

[anygunanywhere]

The question is whether a court jurisdiction will allow small non-compliance in determining if you were actually notified.

tex

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(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.

Words mean things. I am really sure I am good to go.