TexasCHLforum.com

SJF, I completely understand, and agree with your wording.
I was only stating from the point of view of LEO's if you were 'caught" inside carrying and there was a sign at one entrance, and not the other, how do you prove which you came through and that you didn't see the sign.

So for my protection quite honestly, I would rather it be required to be at all entrances that just conspicuously posted in 1 spot

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Skiprr, I think you left something off..... It has to be in both English and Spanish, doesn't it, for it to be valid?

The "english and spanish" is part of the definition of a sign, along with 1" block letters, contrasting colors and conspicuously displayed.
That is not necessary for "written communications" that might be handed to you.

Correct.

I have also wondered if a place like a movie theater were to print just the English version or even English and Spanish on the back of their receipts would that be effective notice. It would meet the letter of the law either way, but much like a business that only has one compliant sign at one of multiple entrances, have we been given effective notice if we did not enter through that entrance or read the back of the receipt? Is this similar to a case where we sign a contract and do not read EVERYTHING in that contract and then violate something in the "small print?" Even though we weren't aware of whatever it was we violated, I think we would likely lose in court if we were to challenge this. Maybe not, but I don't think it is as even as the toss of a coin.

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Skiprr, I think you left something off..... It has to be in both English and Spanish, doesn't it, for it to be valid?

The "english and spanish" is part of the definition of a sign, along with 1" block letters, contrasting colors and conspicuously displayed.
That is not necessary for "written communications" that might be handed to you.

Correct.

I have also wondered if a place like a movie theater were to print just the English version or even English and Spanish on the back of their receipts would that be effective notice. It would meet the letter of the law either way, but much like a business that only has one compliant sign at one of multiple entrances, have we been given effective notice if we did not enter through that entrance or read the back of the receipt? Is this similar to a case where we sign a contract and do not read EVERYTHING in that contract and then violate something in the "small print?" Even though we weren't aware of whatever it was we violated, I think we would likely lose in court if we were to challenge this. Maybe not, but I don't think it is as even as the toss of a coin.

A more interesting question (well, at least to me ) is -- Did you get valid notice if the sign does not contain the Spanish portion, and your primary language is English? How about if you don't even speak Spanish?

So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

RiverCity.45 wrote:So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I don't know. My eyes are over 40.

RiverCity.45 wrote:So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Depends on how WELL you want them to dance, and to what music!

man the stuff I learn here.

According to Merriam-Webster, verbal means spoken, not written. Oral relates to the mouth. When it comes to words, they are synonymous. A verbal test is the same as an oral test. The questions and answers are spoken, rather than written.

TxRVer wrote:According to Merriam-Webster, verbal means spoken, not written. Oral relates to the mouth. When it comes to words, they are synonymous. A verbal test is the same as an oral test. The questions and answers are spoken, rather than written.

From Merriam-Webster on line:

1ver·bal
adj \ˈvər-bəl\
Definition of VERBAL
1
a : of, relating to, or consisting of words <verbal instructions> b : of, relating to, or involving words rather than meaning or substance <a consistency that is merely verbal and scholastic — B. N. Cardozo> c : consisting of or using words only and not involving action <verbal abuse>
2
: of, relating to, or formed from a verb <a verbal adjective>
3
: spoken rather than written <a verbal contract>
4
: verbatim, word-for-word <a verbal translation>
5
: of or relating to facility in the use and comprehension of words <verbal aptitude>
— ver·bal·ly adverb

Looks like it can be either just words or spoken to me.

TxRVer wrote:According to Merriam-Webster, verbal means spoken, not written. Oral relates to the mouth. When it comes to words, they are synonymous. A verbal test is the same as an oral test. The questions and answers are spoken, rather than written.

Of the five definitions given, one (#3) says spoken. The first definition is:
1.
a : of, relating to, or consisting of words <verbal instructions>
b : of, relating to, or involving words rather than meaning or substance <a consistency that is merely verbal and scholastic — B. N. Cardozo>
c : consisting of or using words only and not involving action <verbal abuse>

It's been my experience that a conversation ceases to be meaningful once someone whips out the dictionary to quote. I'm outta here!

Written = Written

Oral or Orally = the spoken word

Verbal or Verbally = either one

Simple enough?

Sorry, but I thought the definition would help clear this up. The only time written was mentioned in the definition was in no. 3 where it said NOT WRITTEN. I don't know how verbal can mean not written in one definition and possibly written in another.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Teamless wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: "conspicuously displayed"

correct, but then the issue is, what if it is displayed at the "personnel gate or door" and you go through a different entrance.
Should you be outed, and it is at the one entrance, which is conspicuously displayed, I would not have seen it.
So for them to be sure, it 'should' be at all entrances so regardless of which you went in, you are notified

I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just saying that TAM said: "To disarm me...sign at all entrances", and that's not what the law says.
It had nothing to do with what "should" be done.

Oh, and again, the law doesn't say it needs to be at an entrance, either.

No, you're right about that. But from my standpoint, if you don't post it at the entrances, where it can be seen before I enter, then it is on you if I walk in armed. What is "conspicuously displayed?" Does that mean "in company cafetaria?" What if I never go in the cafetaria? Then I've never been given effective notice. So, what the law says, and how that might be applied in the real world means that a person can walk into a posted building, and still never receive notice. Therefore, if they want to keep you out of the building when armed, for all practical purposes they need to post it all all the entrances.

Kinda like Fort Worth Zoo? Where you have to buy a ticket, and then get into the park before you encounter the 30.06 sign?