Intent or the letter of the law...?

BadCo45ACP · Post by **BadCo45ACP** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:05 am

My take FWIW.

The TPC makes specific references to exceptions, sections that do not apply, and things that are a defense to prosecution. The only one of these in 30.06 is an "exception" (e). There aren't any do not applies or defenses to prosecution. An 8 1/2"X14" 30.06 posting w/ 1/2" letters does not meet the requirements of PC 30.06(c)((3)(B) a sign posted that: but does it meet PC 30.06(c)((3)(A) a card or other document.....? I don't know and don't want to find out the hard way.

Ignore a 30.06 posting, whether it meets all the legal requirements or not, or 30.05 posting w/ references that include CHL, or a 51% posting, proper or not, you may go for a ride. An officer dealing w/ what may be considered an improper posting, not being judge or jury, may decide to let them figure it out. You want to take that risk thats your business.

Right2Carry · Post by **Right2Carry** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:33 am

GrannyGlock wrote:
para driver wrote: but what if you have a medical emergency and the paramedics have to remove articles of clothing in order to give you medical treatment? They will find or expose your firearm and then you aren't concealed anymore and you have violated a questionable 30.06 posting which you will have to defend.
We have had forum members who have tested this one, right Carlson1?

Emergency responders and ERs have procedures for handling this scenario. Do not hesitate to carry because you might have to go to the hospital as a patient!

My personal standard is that if it is a "no guns" sign, their meaning is no unlawful carrying of firearms, a 30.06 in any form is sufficient warning to me, they don't want me there. If I were to be confronted where a no guns sign was posted, then I would leave immediately and do my best to find an alternative place to do my business.

I think you missed my point. My point is not about being outed by medical personel when carrying legally, it is about being outed by medical personel in a place that has a legal looking 30.06 sign posted that was ignored because someone thought that the letters, ect.. didn't meet the requirements. We are talking about 30.06 postings, not your everyday legal carry. Some on this forum have hinted at ignoring signs that they feel don't meet the requirements by basically looking for a technicality.

Post by **carlson1** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:11 am

GrannyGlock wrote:We have had forum members who have tested this one, right Carlson1?

Yes and they were very kind and helpful.

fratermus · Post by **fratermus** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:16 pm

Venus Pax wrote:I don't have a problem with a small business posting 30.06--I will simply take my business elsewhere. It's the service provider's/ restaurant/store owner's business and is this person's choice. And my money is spent by my choice.

Agreed completely. And it shows that the company is has done enough homework to properly post their CHL ban. I respect that. Disagree, but respect.

Venus Pax wrote: I've never knowingly walked past a 30.06 sign with my gun, however. (I do take the stun gun.)

I have accidentally walked past a valid 30.06 before: totally my fault and it reflects poorly on my attentiveness that day. It was a place with multiple entrances and while walking around inside I saw a 30.06 through the glass doors of another entrance. I was startled and left through that entrance (it was the closest way out of the infraction), walked around to the car and disarmed. Surely some entrances were marked and others were not, right? Wrong. Went back in through the original entrance and there was the 30.06 clear as day. Walked right by it. Mea Culpa.

I have seen small signs that had a picture of a banned gun and language that said, in total: "Carrying a gun on these premisis is illegal according to Tx law 30.06". Uh, no it isn't. But I do try not to go to those kinds of places when I have other practical choices.

bburgi · Post by **bburgi** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:34 am

Right2Carry wrote: Some on this forum have hinted at ignoring signs that they feel don't meet the requirements by basically looking for a technicality.

I'm not sure if you're referencing my postings or not, but in case you are, I would like to clarify...

My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with whether I "feel" a sign meets the requirements. I'm talking about signs that do not meet the requirements, and there are no feelings involved - If the letters on a sign are not 1" tall, they're not 1" tall - my feelings don't matter. If the sign is not in English AND Spanish, again my feelings don't matter. The way the law is written it's black and white. My stance is that if a sign doesn't meet the requirements of the law, it's not legally binding and since it's not legally binding anyone can safely ignore it just like any other "no-guns" sign... All "feeling" is left out of it.

I'll reiterate - I do not look for technicalities, nor do I advocate doing so - but if a sign is not legal, it's not legal. No two ways around it.

If you weren't talking about me in your post, then I apologize - but hopefully that will clear it up for anyone else.

-Burgi

kw5kw · Post by **kw5kw** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:03 am

bburgi wrote:
Right2Carry wrote: Some on this forum have hinted at ignoring signs that they feel don't meet the requirements by basically looking for a technicality.
I'm not sure if you're referencing my postings or not, but in case you are, I would like to clarify...

My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with whether I "feel" a sign meets the requirements. I'm talking about signs that do not meet the requirements, and there are no feelings involved - If the letters on a sign are not 1" tall, they're not 1" tall - my feelings don't matter. If the sign is not in English AND Spanish, again my feelings don't matter. The way the law is written it's black and white. My stance is that if a sign doesn't meet the requirements of the law, it's not legally binding and since it's not legally binding anyone can safely ignore it just like any other "no-guns" sign... All "feeling" is left out of it.

I'll reiterate - I do not look for technicalities, nor do I advocate doing so - but if a sign is not legal, it's not legal. No two ways around it.

If you weren't talking about me in your post, then I apologize - but hopefully that will clear it up for anyone else.

-Burgi

pbandjelly · Post by **pbandjelly** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:58 pm

so, right after I got my CHL (and long before I came around these parts), I went over to ye ol' Taco CabanaRama.
didn't know I was hated like the plague by their people, shewt, I'd been going there for years, oblivious.
it was kinda late, and there was a line, so after ordering, I had a seat in the "waiting area" next to the Salsa. there was a Copper, doing the same, and eventually we began chatting (it was a long wait...).
I asked him how he like working nights (I said it was late...), and he was telling me about the swing shift and all that jazz. I sez to him,"well, can't be too bad, it's only Lewisville, after all." and he tellz me, "Yeah, we just had a shots fired right down the road an hour ago"

so I sez, "Well, that's why I gots me one ah deez." and flash my CHL at him. (yes I realize I should have been burned at the stake for not being tacticool....)
Dude sez, "Well, be safe out there." I get my food, offer a pleasantry, and make like a baby and head out.
Johnny LawDawg never said two words about no 30.06, and I never saw one. Wasn't until many months later did I even notice it, you know, the 8.5"x11" sheet o' papyrus job. ah, well.

[/random story]

Right2Carry · Post by **Right2Carry** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:27 pm

bburgi wrote:
Right2Carry wrote: Some on this forum have hinted at ignoring signs that they feel don't meet the requirements by basically looking for a technicality.
I'm not sure if you're referencing my postings or not, but in case you are, I would like to clarify...

My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with whether I "feel" a sign meets the requirements. I'm talking about signs that do not meet the requirements, and there are no feelings involved - If the letters on a sign are not 1" tall, they're not 1" tall - my feelings don't matter. If the sign is not in English AND Spanish, again my feelings don't matter. The way the law is written it's black and white. My stance is that if a sign doesn't meet the requirements of the law, it's not legally binding and since it's not legally binding anyone can safely ignore it just like any other "no-guns" sign... All "feeling" is left out of it.

I'll reiterate - I do not look for technicalities, nor do I advocate doing so - but if a sign is not legal, it's not legal. No two ways around it.

If you weren't talking about me in your post, then I apologize - but hopefully that will clear it up for anyone else.

-Burgi

Actually I wasn't talking about anyone specifically. Of course you will have to prove your point in a court of law that the sign is not legal. Your interpretation of the law and the sign not being legal because it has .97 letterss instead of 1 inch letters just might not hold up in court.

Like I said, if you want to spend money on legal fees, face criminal charges, and risk losing your license over that, hey go for it. You say the sign isn't legal, a judge or jury may say the sign is legal. One thing is for sure you are going to spend some money to find out.

I am just sitting around waiting on one of you guys or gals to test the legality of it all.

On a side note, our jails hold quite a few individuals that THOUGHT they were on the right side of the law.

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:42 pm

Not being a psychic or mind reader, I concern myself with complying with the letter of the law, and not with trying to guess the intent of someone who posted a non-compliant sign.

A "ghostbuster" sign I'll ignore.

A sign quoting obsolete or incorrect laws I'll ignore.

If the entrance I use has no sign, I'm not going to check out the other entrances to see if the store or mall's management has forgotten to post the entrance I use. It's THEIR place to post a sign where I can readily see it if they want to keep me out.

A sign with lettering close to the 1" requirement I'll observe - I don't want to be a test case for passing a sign with 0.97" tall letters, as someone could plausibly argue it "rounds out" to 1" . . . and I likewise won't ignore something because of a missing or extra punctuation mark or some other trivial difference. BUT - a typewritten sign on a sheet of notebook paper - uh uh.

And if some establishment is clearly more of a bar than a restaurant, I'll operate on the assumption that most of their revenue comes from liquor sales for on-site consumption, and I won't carry inside, regardless of whether or not they have a "51%" sign posted.

I realize that logic and reason are often irrelevant when speaking of THE LAW, but I've found that common sense and, above all, discretion have kept me out of trouble so far . . . so I plan to keep using both.

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:09 pm

HankB wrote:Not being a psychic or mind reader, I concern myself with complying with the letter of the law, and not with trying to guess the intent of someone who posted a non-compliant sign.

A "ghostbuster" sign I'll ignore.

A sign quoting obsolete or incorrect laws I'll ignore.

If the entrance I use has no sign, I'm not going to check out the other entrances to see if the store or mall's management has forgotten to post the entrance I use. It's THEIR place to post a sign where I can readily see it if they want to keep me out.

A sign with lettering close to the 1" requirement I'll observe - I don't want to be a test case for passing a sign with 0.97" tall letters, as someone could plausibly argue it "rounds out" to 1" . . . and I likewise won't ignore something because of a missing or extra punctuation mark or some other trivial difference. BUT - a typewritten sign on a sheet of notebook paper - uh uh.

And if some establishment is clearly more of a bar than a restaurant, I'll operate on the assumption that most of their revenue comes from liquor sales for on-site consumption, and I won't carry inside, regardless of whether or not they have a "51%" sign posted.

I realize that logic and reason are often irrelevant when speaking of THE LAW, but I've found that common sense and, above all, discretion have kept me out of trouble so far . . . so I plan to keep using both.

Right2Carry · Post by **Right2Carry** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:23 pm

HankB wrote:Not being a psychic or mind reader, I concern myself with complying with the letter of the law, and not with trying to guess the intent of someone who posted a non-compliant sign.

A "ghostbuster" sign I'll ignore.

A sign quoting obsolete or incorrect laws I'll ignore.

If the entrance I use has no sign, I'm not going to check out the other entrances to see if the store or mall's management has forgotten to post the entrance I use. It's THEIR place to post a sign where I can readily see it if they want to keep me out.

A sign with lettering close to the 1" requirement I'll observe - I don't want to be a test case for passing a sign with 0.97" tall letters, as someone could plausibly argue it "rounds out" to 1" . . . and I likewise won't ignore something because of a missing or extra punctuation mark or some other trivial difference. BUT - a typewritten sign on a sheet of notebook paper - uh uh.

And if some establishment is clearly more of a bar than a restaurant, I'll operate on the assumption that most of their revenue comes from liquor sales for on-site consumption, and I won't carry inside, regardless of whether or not they have a "51%" sign posted.

I realize that logic and reason are often irrelevant when speaking of THE LAW, but I've found that common sense and, above all, discretion have kept me out of trouble so far . . . so I plan to keep using both.

Very nice post. You are correct it boils down to common sense and doing what is right. Ignoring a 30.06 sign that is in all aspects technically correct except for a missing comma, not the right font, letters that may be close to 1" in block height, a mispelled word, white letters on clear glass ( yes some actually believe that does not qualify as contrasting colors), or any number of things, IMHO are just begging for a ton of legal trouble if they get caught.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:38 pm

I agree with most everything else you said except.......

Right2Carry wrote: On a side note, our jails hold quite a few individuals that THOUGHT they were on the right side of the law.

Not that it's a big deal or anything, but I doubt it. I think most of the people in jail knew full well they were breaking the law when they did whatever they did that got them there. More than "most" in fact. Nearly all of them.

They just didn't think they would get CAUGHT.

But then, jail is not a place to go if you are looking to meet geniuses.

Right2Carry · Post by **Right2Carry** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:27 pm

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I agree with most everything else you said except.......

Right2Carry wrote: On a side note, our jails hold quite a few individuals that THOUGHT they were on the right side of the law.
Not that it's a big deal or anything, but I doubt it. I think most of the people in jail knew full well they were breaking the law when they did whatever they did that got them there. More than "most" in fact. Nearly all of them.

They just didn't think they would get CAUGHT.

But then, jail is not a place to go if you are looking to meet geniuses.

You are correct for the most part. I would lay odds that some at least knew what they were doing and thought they might have some technicality that might help them out. There are some geniuses in jail, IE..Lex Luther, lol.

I equate it to walking past what at first glance looks like a legal 30.06 sign, then they start looking to see what they can find wrong with it, and then they find something that maybe they can make an argument over so now they think they are justified in ignoring the sign, HOPING that they guessed right and won't get caught. If they do get caught they have figured out they might be able to win the argument in court bassed on something that is wrong with the sign.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:08 am

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Not that it's a big deal or anything, but I doubt it. I think most of the people in jail knew full well they were breaking the law when they did whatever they did that got them there. More than "most" in fact. Nearly all of them.

They just didn't think they would get CAUGHT.

But then, jail is not a place to go if you are looking to meet geniuses.

I've met a lot of very smart men in prison. Some of them brilliant, and more than a few rising to the level of "genius".

Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales, for instance, was hardly a moron.

When you say most knew they were breaking the law, but didn't think they would get caught, you're right. But it goes deeper than that: Prisons hold a disproportionate number of sociopaths. When a sociopath gets caught, he doesn't think of it in terms of, "I knew it was illegal, but I took my chance and I got caught." No, a sociopath has no sense of guilt. He thinks: "That cop didn't have probable cause for the search, and my lawyer did a bad job, and the jury was prejudiced, so I should have been found not guilty, therefore I didn't even do it!"

Funny thing about sociopaths: they believe the rules don't apply to them, but they're adamant that everyone else should play by the rules, down to every jot and tittle. It's the "guiltiest dog barks the loudest" syndrome, frequently seen in professional sports.

Kevin

Post by **carlson1** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:11 am

Great Post With Great Truth.