TexasCHLforum.com

Hello. My grandmother is in a nursing home, and they have a 30.06 sign on the front door. The only question as to whether this sign is enforceable is that it is on a smoke glass door, with black letters. I nearly missed it the first time I saw it because it does sort of blend in to the glass. In all other respects it is definitely legal. Any thoughts on this?

If you didn't see the sign because of the limited contrast in colors, an officer may take it into account when he/she asks for your side of the story and looks at the sign. If the officer agrees with you I would guess he/she wouldn't cite/arrest you.

However, if the officer doesn't agree then it's up to a judge/jury. Personally, I would prefer not to intentionally be a test case. If I didn't see the sign, was arrested and felt the sign was not legitimate because of contrast I would have no problem fighting it.

If it is legal in all other aspects, since you are now aware of it, it is 100% enforceable.

KC5AV wrote:If it is legal in all other aspects, since you are now aware of it, it is 100% enforceable.

Well her question was whether or not it was legal. Black letters on black glass is the complet opposite of "contrasting". Awareness is not the issue here, the sign is legal or it isnt. I havent read any provision stating the sign becomes binding upon awareness.

rm9792 wrote:

KC5AV wrote:If it is legal in all other aspects, since you are now aware of it, it is 100% enforceable.

Well her question was whether or not it was legal. Black letters on black glass is the complet opposite of "contrasting". Awareness is not the issue here, the sign is legal or it isnt. I havent read any provision stating the sign becomes binding upon awareness.

Actually, I based my statement on this statement in the original post:

In all other respects it is definitely legal.

I wouldn't want to have to argue in court what does and doesn't contrast.

KC5AV wrote:

rm9792 wrote:

KC5AV wrote:If it is legal in all other aspects, since you are now aware of it, it is 100% enforceable.

Well her question was whether or not it was legal. Black letters on black glass is the complet opposite of "contrasting". Awareness is not the issue here, the sign is legal or it isnt. I havent read any provision stating the sign becomes binding upon awareness.

Actually, I based my statement on this statement in the original post:

In all other respects it is definitely legal.

I wouldn't want to have to argue in court what does and doesn't contrast.

If only one "respect" is illegal then the rest are moot. The sign is not legal, period. In all other respects my truck is legal but the inspection is expired, therefore it is not legal. I dont think even the most liberal Massachusets jury (I know it is in Texas) would say black on black is contrasting.

Black letters on black glass is the complet opposite of "contrasting".

The OP said it was black letters on smoke glass. That is not necessarily the same as black on black. The question of whether or not it qualifies as contrasting is still up in the air.

I think we need pics..................

CodeJockey wrote:Hello. My grandmother is in a nursing home, and they have a 30.06 sign on the front door. The only question as to whether this sign is enforceable is that it is on a smoke glass door, with black letters. I nearly missed it the first time I saw it because it does sort of blend in to the glass. In all other respects it is definitely legal. Any thoughts on this?

You already know that you are not welcomed as a CHLer. The question you have to ask yourself is whether ignoring the sign is going to be worth the time and money you are going to spend defending yourself if you are caught. Is it worth losing your CHL if you are caught and found to have violated the law. Are you willing to be the test case? IMHO the decision is easy for me, either comply or don't visit the grandmother.

Yeah, when I do go visit my grandmother, I disarm and lock it in the car. I was merely curious as to peoples thoughts on this. I will take a photo next time i'm there if I can.

See, that's the problem. The law is basically whatever the police and DA says it is, unless you have $$$ to dispute it.

nitrogen wrote:See, that's the problem. The law is basically whatever the police and DA says it is, unless you have $$$ to dispute it.

Quite true.

nitrogen wrote:See, that's the problem. The law is basically whatever the police and DA says it is, unless you have $$$ to dispute it.

This is not unique to concealed carry though. I distinctly remember a conversation my BIL had with a game warden regarding the "contrasting" TX numbers on his bass boat. He didn't get anywhere arguing his point and I suspect if I found myself in the postion of being "caught" at the nursing home I certainly wouldn't argue my case from the standpoint of "the sign is not enforceable because the letters do not contrast enough". Right or wrong, IMO that would translate to an officer or judge as "he read the sign in plain English and understands the intent but chose to ingnore it because he wants us to define what is an appropriate level of contrast....hmmm...smart alec...Guilty as charged!" Nope, I would be dumber than dirt..."Excuse me? What sign? Where? Gosh I can barely read that. I didn't even see that...etc." and hope they have mercy on me.

The OP reminds me of a 30.06 at a bank where I sometimes do business. The sign is on plate glass doors as you enter the bank and legal in all aspects; however, if you don't look for it until you enter the doors, the letters blend with the carpet inside and it is easily overlooked. I understand the intent of the sign and therefore choose not to carry or use the drive-through.

Now Improperly worded, ghostbusters, or nowhere near the ballpark of the requirements, I routinely walk on by in a heartbeat.

nitrogen wrote:See, that's the problem. The law is basically whatever the police and DA says it is, unless you have $$$ to dispute it.

This has always been one of my complaints as a police officer. I want a clear cut law that is black and white. It makes my job easier.

When I see a vague law, or one that requires me to interpret it, I always make the interpretation that is most favorable to me until a court tells me otherwise. Since I think most other people do this also, I want clear laws to enforce. Debating the interpretation is only fun when done for academic curiosity, like when sitting in an office or over the internet