Chuck E Cheese in San Antonio is posted.

[Oldgringo]

What specifically makes this a non-compliant sign?

Scott nailed it, the GV Mills sign has the old wording **Article 4413(29ee)**, not the correct wording of: Subchapter H, Chapter 411.

Close, but no cigar! Good Job!

Your lawyer should be able to get you out of this one; of course, he/she would want to be paid for the effort. He/she might even get some punitive damages by arguing "entrapment" inasmuch as the sign was intentionally worded to er, uh...you know.

If I was an enterprising young guy with, or starting a business, I'd consider having some of those little freeby shirt pocket plastic calendar thinghys made up with the exact wording of a 30.06 sign on one side and my name and services on the other. There might even be room on the card for a six-month calendar? For example, a CHL Instructor might even implement this advertising medium?

[PUCKER]

oldgringo - I actually took a pic with my cell phone (and keep it on my phone in the picture album) of a small correctly-worded 30.06 sign that Crossfire (took her class the last time around) passed out in class, for reference. Like you said, "close, but no cigar" - so I carry my own (cigars)!

[chasfm11]

Thanks for the clarification, Scott. Now you know why I'm not an editor. I have trouble finding mistakes in other people's work. Heck, look at my posts - I have trouble finding my own mistakes.

It still might be worth a discussion with the Grapevine PD. I suspect their response is that "close enough is good enough."

I'm not planning to carry past the sign because I only go there any more under duress. They obviously do not want my business. From the looks of the crowds during my singular visit in 2010, I'm not alone in that feeling.

[Oldgringo]

oldgringo - I actually took a pic with my cell phone (and keep it on my phone in the picture album) of a small correctly-worded 30.06 sign that Crossfire (took her class the last time around) passed out in class, for reference. Like you said, "close, but no cigar" - so I carry my own (cigars)!

GOOD IDEA!

Everybody, it seems, has at least one cell phone.

[srothstein]

Your lawyer should be able to get you out of this one; of course, he/she would want to be paid for the effort. He/she might even get some punitive damages by arguing "entrapment" inasmuch as the sign was intentionally worded to er, uh...you know.

This is the one incorrect sign that really does bother me for going to court on. Not only could the mall argue that the sign was not entrapment, but it was the exactly correct sign when it was first posted. They could also argue in court that it is normal legal practice for a reference to a law to automatically include any changes to that law, such as encoding it.

If I were the police officer, I would not arrest, but from what I have heard, at least Katy PD has said they would. I could see a local PD arresting because of this sign, and a local judge convicting also. I don't see it staying through an appeals court, but the local politics sometimes means more than the actual wording of the law. That may be a shock to some, I know, but it really is true. Katy PD and the local Harris County Court judge get more financial support from the mall than from almost any individual.

Overall, I don't like to tell people to ignore this sign without the specific warning that it used to be the correct one. Of course, I tend to tell people to be more cautious over other minor technical problems, like the lettering size, for very similar reasons. I think you would win at the appellate level, but it can be a very expensive proposition getting there.

[Oldgringo]

Your lawyer should be able to get you out of this one; of course, he/she would want to be paid for the effort. He/she might even get some punitive damages by arguing "entrapment" inasmuch as the sign was intentionally worded to er, uh...you know.

This is the one incorrect sign that really does bother me for going to court on. Not only could the mall argue that the sign was not entrapment, but it was the exactly correct sign when it was first posted. They could also argue in court that it is normal legal practice for a reference to a law to automatically include any changes to that law, such as encoding it.

If I were the police officer, I would not arrest, but from what I have heard, at least Katy PD has said they would. I could see a local PD arresting because of this sign, and a local judge convicting also. I don't see it staying through an appeals court, but the local politics sometimes means more than the actual wording of the law. That may be a shock to some, I know, but it really is true. Katy PD and the local Harris County Court judge get more financial support from the mall than from almost any individual.

Overall, I don't like to tell people to ignore this sign without the specific warning that it used to be the correct one. Of course, I tend to tell people to be more cautious over other minor technical problems, like the lettering size, for very similar reasons. I think you would win at the appellate level, but it can be a very expensive proposition getting there.

Thank you, Steve.

Quite obviously, this discussion has expanded well past the Chuck E Cheese issue.

Your last sentence says it all.