TexasCHLforum.com

Lucky45 wrote:Just like I thought, after all that yakity-yak and I don't see that many people DISARMING. I respect their intent.... PLEASE!!!!

who said anything about disarming?

Non-compliant means I walk right past it.

Dan

If I had taken the ride with the man in blue from the hospital to his office, which one of you guys would have rushed over to get me out. The front door (sliding glass door) had proper wording, English and Spanish, but was white lettering on clear glass, and appeared to be about 1/2 inch tall letters. Yep, I know the rule, but I'll guarantee that all the LEO's do NOT know the rule. Most of my trips in and out of that particular hospital have been through the rear entrances, including the ER entrance. There is absolutely NO posting at the rear, thus I have always carried. A couple of weeks ago I had an hour to waste while my Mom was in surgery, and decided to go on a scavanger hunt for signage. All I had to do was to walk out the main front entry and attempt to chase the moving, and improper sign on the front sliding glass door. Since I was going to be in and out that door several times, i decided it may be best to leave it in truck. That same evening when we were leaving for the night I intentionally went out the ER area door so I could stop by the security officers cubicle. Had a very nice chat with the older Hospital Security Guard that thoroughly understood chl law regarding 30.06 posting, and he laughed and said he and the rest of the Security Staff had been advising the administration to take the silly sign off the door. Well, sitting right beside the security guy was a fairly young uniformed city Police Officer that tried to argue that all concealed carry was illegal in all hospitals (he ain't read down to item "i") and would have arrested anyone caught with a handgun. Even when the older gentleman convinced him that it now required proper 30.06 posting the younger officer still wanted to believe he would have been required to make an arrest based on the sign on the front door. Either way, the older security guy and I agreed that the hospital wasn't properly posted and concealed carry being "concealed" anyway, there shouldn't be a probelm anyway. The young LEO still wanted to argue, but realized he was most likely wrong, and the older guard commented on my Kimber cap I happened to have on that night as I went on my way.

Now, under those circumstances I felt a bit justified in my decision to disarm, and as it turned out I believe the younger leo would have possibly made life uneasy for me, or anyone else that may have been printing a bit. I have worked fire and ambulance on weekend nights, and believe me, you do get a bit on edge at the emergency room doors.

So, I am one of the tiny number that said I would disarm, but only because the criteria was improperly displayed 30.06. I would NOT argue with the white on glass, or the not quite large enough lettering since it was correct wording. Under the circumstances of using the marked entrance, however "improper" you want to make it out to be, I wouldn't risk it. So, I stay the heck away from that door and use the ER door.

oh, another small detail. Ya can't always take your business elsewhere

mr surveyor wrote:the older security guy and I agreed that the hospital wasn't properly posted and concealed carry being "concealed" anyway, there shouldn't be a probelm anyway. The young LEO still wanted to argue, but realized he was most likely wrong

I agree with you that it's a choice each of us has to make and there may be times when disarming might be the easier way to go.

These two threads have been an ongoing discussion on the ethical and moral implications of ignoring a non-compliant 30.06 sign. I think the vast majority agree that it's legal to ignore them, yet about half feel that's it's not ethical or moral to ignore a non-compliant sign.

I don't know if the waters have been tested with any case law, but someone with more legal knowledge may have some answers.

Tom

The laws may be very strict, but all it takes is one court decision stating that a person who encounters a 30.06 sign, studies it and determines it is not to spec is nevertheless made aware of its intent and, thus aware, is trespassing by entering or remaining on the property.

I personally respect the sign and take my business elsewhere. Most of the places I shop would not have someone on-premises who would both give a flying flip and be able to do something about a new 30.06 sign. I've found that even general managers, if they run chain stores, are very limited in authority.

mr surveyor wrote:The front door (sliding glass door) had proper wording, English and Spanish, but was white lettering on clear glass, and appeared to be about 1/2 inch tall letters. I would NOT argue with the white on glass, or the not quite large enough lettering since it was correct wording.

I wanted to comment on the white lettering on glass. In the past, a couple members have posted something to the effect that this doesn't meet the 30.06 requirement because the lettering must be in "contrasting colors." Let me assure you that white or black or red or green letters on clear glass are contrasting colors. Those of you who would argue that clear glass isn't a color will be sitting handcuffed in the back of a patrol car. Just my thoughts.

phddan wrote:Non-compliant means I walk right past it.

Dan

+1

WildBill wrote:I wanted to comment on the white lettering on glass. In the past, a couple members have posted something to the effect that this doesn't meet the 30.06 requirement because the lettering must be in "contrasting colors." Let me assure you that white or black or red or green letters on clear glass are contrasting colors. Those of you who would argue that clear glass isn't a color will be sitting handcuffed in the back of a patrol car.

Yes we all know you can't beat the ride. While I'm not the source of the answer, here's more food for thought. Those letters are not contrasting if Big Bertha is standing behind the sign wearing a white or black or red or green skirt. White letters on a now white background is not very contrasting, nor are red letters against a red background. Wonder if this is the rational for the word "colors". Hmmm. Just thinking out loud here.

I walk past the ghostbusters sign.

I do not walk past 30.06.

I walk past signs like "It is against state law for you to have a concealed handgun here" (assuming that it is not otherwise illegal) signs.

I do not walk past a 30.06 that is close enough that I have to stop and look at it to figure out whether or not it is non-compliant.

And I did order a chunk of those CHL business cards thingies with the "how much do you know about your other customers" language on it. I do not plan on any other forms of education, coercion, or confrontation with business owners.

gmckinl wrote:Yes we all know you can't beat the ride.

I am not talking about just beating the ride. I believe that you would be convicted if you went to trial. I believe the intent of the law is simply that it is relatively easy to read, hence contrasting colors. I wouldn't base my defense on Bertha either.

I'm inclined to agree. Galveston County has several 30.06 signs in red letters on glass. There's no way you could miss them. They're about six square feet.

And win or lose, you spend $2,000-5,000 for a lawyer, depending upon how the prosecutor stretches out the agony.

- Jim
[Edited to correct typo]

fratermus wrote: And I did order a chunk of those CHL business cards thingies with the "how much do you know about your other customers" language on it. I do not plan on any other forms of education, coercion, or confrontation with business owners.

umm, where did you get those?

seamusTX wrote:I'm inclined to agree. Galveston County has several 30.06 signs in red letters on glass.

Jim,

If the only issue is that the sign in on glass, I would not want to be the test-case. I don't think you could win.

Tom

Perhaps we need another choice

"I giggle/snicker at the incorrect sign, then proceed to do whatever the heck I was going to do before I noticed it."

PC30.06 signage requirements were made the law in order to eliminate ambiguity - compliant signs carry the force of law, non-compliant signs don't.

Period.

Now, if the sign is very close to compliance - say, 0.99" tall letters instead of 1" tall - I'm going to observe it, since with my luck, I'd get an idiot judge who rules that 0.99" rounds up to 1" . . .

But if its a ghostbusters sign, quotes an obsolete law, or states something like "Security Notice - Concealed Handguns Are Prohibited In This Facility," then as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist.