The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
I agree with you that it should definitely be easier to see, and therefore better notice to those of us who carry that said business does not want our dollars.LDB415 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:08 pm When one looks at the electromagnetic spectrum clear is not a color on the spectrum. Therefore any 30.06/30.07 signage composed of any color letters on a glass background does not have contrasting colors as it has only one color, the color of the letters. It makes that posting invalid. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, just exercising facts and common sense. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it whether defendant or juror.
I suppose "absence of color" and "color" are contrasting however that does not satisfy the requirement of the law which says:Flightmare wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:28 pmI agree with you that it should definitely be easier to see, and therefore better notice to those of us who carry that said business does not want our dollars.LDB415 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:08 pm When one looks at the electromagnetic spectrum clear is not a color on the spectrum. Therefore any 30.06/30.07 signage composed of any color letters on a glass background does not have contrasting colors as it has only one color, the color of the letters. It makes that posting invalid. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, just exercising facts and common sense. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it whether defendant or juror.
However, wouldn't "absence of color" and "color" be contrasting by definition? There may be some prospective jurors out there who find that while text on a clear glass door meets with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.
My 2 cents, and IANAL.
Well, since a ham sandwich can easily be indicted, I do not doubt that a trial jury, especially in this day, would go on their feelings than the precise language of the law. Too many are re-defining words to the point that words have no meaning anymore.Flightmare wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:28 pm
I agree with you that it should definitely be easier to see, and therefore better notice to those of us who carry that said business does not want our dollars.
However, wouldn't "absence of color" and "color" be contrasting by definition? There may be some prospective jurors out there who find that while text on a clear glass door meets with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.
My 2 cents, and IANAL.
I work at an Emergency Center with noncompliant signs. (My opinion)Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:09 am In what possible realm are we envisioning that a jury trial would result from someone walking past an alleged 30.06 / 30.07 sign. I am excluding someone refusing to leave after being told to do so, of course since in that case the specifics of the sign are a bit of a moot point.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot envision that all of the following would happen:
1. Someone notices my gun (and yes even if I'm OC'ing there's a decent chance they don't notice).
2. That someone is in management of the business or tells someone who is in management.
3. Management decides to call the police instead of simply telling me to leave / take my gun outside.
4. I am still there when the police arrive on the scene. So this excludes convenience stores. I pretty much need to be at a sit down restaurant, or something else where I'll be there for a while.
5. The police decide to issue me a citation even after I agree to leave as soon as they tell me that the manager doesn't want guns on the property.
6. I demand a jury trial over the potential $200 fine. Or are we really going to believe that a DA would pursue a jury trial for what is essentially a traffic ticket?
So assign some percentage probabilities to each of the above, and then multiply all of those percentages together. Assuming you are at all realistic in estimating percentages, the result will likely be less than a 0.1% chance (and that's being very generous) of ending up in front of a jury on this. Then you just need one person on the jury who understands the fact that "clear" is not a color. IF that fails, you also can explore the VESP defense. And if all else fails, pay your $200, which is basically the cost of a couple range sessions considering the current price of ammo.
Can you say what facility you work for so that I can make sure I NEVER visit there.BigGuy wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:15 amI work at an Emergency Center with noncompliant signs. (My opinion)Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:09 am In what possible realm are we envisioning that a jury trial would result from someone walking past an alleged 30.06 / 30.07 sign. I am excluding someone refusing to leave after being told to do so, of course since in that case the specifics of the sign are a bit of a moot point.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot envision that all of the following would happen:
1. Someone notices my gun (and yes even if I'm OC'ing there's a decent chance they don't notice).
2. That someone is in management of the business or tells someone who is in management.
3. Management decides to call the police instead of simply telling me to leave / take my gun outside.
4. I am still there when the police arrive on the scene. So this excludes convenience stores. I pretty much need to be at a sit down restaurant, or something else where I'll be there for a while.
5. The police decide to issue me a citation even after I agree to leave as soon as they tell me that the manager doesn't want guns on the property.
6. I demand a jury trial over the potential $200 fine. Or are we really going to believe that a DA would pursue a jury trial for what is essentially a traffic ticket?
So assign some percentage probabilities to each of the above, and then multiply all of those percentages together. Assuming you are at all realistic in estimating percentages, the result will likely be less than a 0.1% chance (and that's being very generous) of ending up in front of a jury on this. Then you just need one person on the jury who understands the fact that "clear" is not a color. IF that fails, you also can explore the VESP defense. And if all else fails, pay your $200, which is basically the cost of a couple range sessions considering the current price of ammo.
The inner doors are now kept continually open, so the signs are at an oblique angle and mirror imaged.
We had a patient come in carrying concealed. He surrendered the weapon to me at the doctor's request once it was discovered. He was in pain and I have NO doubt he didn't see those signs.
I returned the weapon to him when he left. Mr Sergeant told me I should have call the police and let them take control of the weapon.
IANAL But -
I wonder what his legal options would have been against the clinic in the face of those (Potentially) noncompliant signs, had I involved the police.
It's not whether the letters contrast with the background that happens to be beyond the sign at the exact moment that a person approaches the sign and looks at it. If that was the legal requirement then a sign would constantly flip between being compliant and non-compliant depending on what happened to be behind the sign at any given moment. Assuming black letters, the sign magically becomes compliant when a lady in a white dress is standing behind it, but is non-compliant when a guy in black pants is standing there?RoyGBiv wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:12 am If I'm on that jury, that sign is compliant to me.
I've seen many on clear glass that I would say are not compliant. Lighting, etc, matters. So does putting the signs on auto sliding glass doors where the posted door slides behind another door panel covered in advertising... Definitely not compliant.
But that one is sufficiently contrasting for the conditions, IMO.
You'd have a better argument (to me) that the signs are posted on open doors and I'm forced to recognize them from the reverse.
YMMV
Good argument. I am somewhat swayed.... Especially the part I bolded.Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:25 amIt's not whether the letters contrast with the background that happens to be beyond the sign at the exact moment that a person approaches the sign and looks at it. If that was the legal requirement then a sign would constantly flip between being compliant and non-compliant depending on what happened to be behind the sign at any given moment. Assuming black letters, the sign magically becomes compliant when a lady in a white dress is standing behind it, but is non-compliant when a guy in black pants is standing there?RoyGBiv wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:12 am If I'm on that jury, that sign is compliant to me.
I've seen many on clear glass that I would say are not compliant. Lighting, etc, matters. So does putting the signs on auto sliding glass doors where the posted door slides behind another door panel covered in advertising... Definitely not compliant.
But that one is sufficiently contrasting for the conditions, IMO.
You'd have a better argument (to me) that the signs are posted on open doors and I'm forced to recognize them from the reverse.
YMMV
Instead, the law states that the letters and the background of the sign have to be in contrasting colors. To me this is not an interpretation. It is a clear black and white legal statement. If the background of the sign itself is not a color, then the requirements of 30.06 / 30.07 are not met, and the state should not get it's $200.
And again, a jury isn't going to be making this decision over a $200 fine.
